- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Blade Runner 2049 spoilers discussion
Posted on 10/13/17 at 6:02 am to Parmen
Posted on 10/13/17 at 6:02 am to Parmen
I know. He sounds like an obsessed nerd, right? I hav'nt seen it yet but I see 90% of this board who generally provide a reliable consensus opinion rave about it and then Mr contrarian nerd comes in and has to show his film critic bona fides.
2
Posted on 10/13/17 at 6:59 am to Dick Leverage
quote:
He sounds like an obsessed nerd, right?
I've been called worse.
In all seriousness, the movie isn't terrible in the same way that the godawful, so-called Star Trek (2009) film is terrible. There is a lot of clear reverence for the original and a solid effort in not discarding it.
Just having trouble with how bad the story is and the glaring things they just whiffed on - nobody is perfect. Nothing is perfect. I get that. I just didn't enjoy this movie as I was expecting to. The characters were drawn way, way too clearly.
They had an orphanage straight out of Dickens. They had an evil, self-hating replicant - completely unredeemable. The unambiguously replicant Blade Runner was a straightforward good guy (I mean, they had him retire Drax at the beginning - but after that, almost no shade of nuance).
Compared to the original where there were literally no good guys nor bad guys - possibly excepting Bryant.
Technical side, I give the film a solid B+. Acting, even, solid B. Story is probably a C- at best. The story dragged down what could have been a nice sequel.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 7:05 am
Posted on 10/13/17 at 8:13 am to Ace Midnight
So, you just wanted the original
Posted on 10/13/17 at 8:19 am to Ace Midnight
quote:how is this a negative? It's retropunk. There's going to be futuristic elements mixed with historic stuff.
They had an orphanage straight out of Dickens
quote:again. so? She's the henchwoman of the primary antagonist. She's an advanced replicant totally different than Roy, yet still has some of the emotional quirks, ie crying when she witnessed death.
They had an evil, self-hating replicant - completely unredeemable.
quote:he goes from boring replicant blade runner....to thinking he's THE ONE....back to boring blade runner realizing Joi doesn't really love him and he's not the one...to saving Deckard and letting him reunite with his daughter and bolstering the replicant resistance.
The unambiguously replicant Blade Runner was a straightforward good guy (I mean, they had him retire Drax at the beginning - but after that, almost no shade of nuance).
That is one hell of a character arc...
quote:I disagree. The Lt was a bit iffy in terms of her worldview and desire to keep order over truth. Besides that I liked the reversal of having Roy's character from the first one basically be K in this one. The replicant...the fake human...learns more about humanity than the others.
Compared to the original where there were literally no good guys nor bad guys
it's a bummer you didn't like it. It has stuck with me for a week and I think I like it more each day
Posted on 10/13/17 at 8:27 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
how is this a negative? It's retropunk.
It's so cliché it laps itself.
quote:
again. so?
Very conventional for this world. The original film had no black and white - the genius is in the grey areas. I just didn't see any in this film.
quote:
That is one hell of a character arc...
It was ambitious, but ultimately pretty gimmicky. A Shyamalan twist. I thought it was clever, but corny at the same time.
quote:
The Lt was a bit iffy in terms of her worldview and desire to keep order over truth.
Meh - she was a classic cop stereotype, doing what was necessary to get the job done - heart of gold.
quote:
Besides that I liked the reversal of having Roy's character from the first one basically be K in this one.
K had almost no depth - and I don't blame that on Gosling. Roy's depth - Roy's character arc - over time, Blade Runner was clearly Roy's story. If they wanted to do that with this film, they should have shown more of Deckard and Rachael's daughter - because it should have been her story, then.
And they tried in various areas to add depth to K - the love affair with the hologram was poorly done, too. I hate to be critical when there was clear effort made to do something different - but when it fails, it fails, IMHO.
I mean - I'm clearly in the minority here (as I was with "Star Trek (2009)"), but the very weak story just couldn't be overcome in other areas of the film.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 8:32 am to Ace Midnight
yea I pretty much vehemently disagree with all of your points 
So I won't go through each one again, but respect your opinion.
So I won't go through each one again, but respect your opinion.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 8:40 am to Dick Leverage
quote:
I know. He sounds like an obsessed nerd, right? I hav'nt seen it yet but I see 90% of this board who generally provide a reliable consensus opinion rave about it and then Mr contrarian nerd comes in and has to show his film critic bona fides.
grow up ... several of us on here are, indeed, blade runner nerds ...
Posted on 10/13/17 at 9:42 am to boogiewoogie1978
quote:
Because I believe it.
Right, but Roger Deakins has been nominated 13 times for an academy award for cinematography. He's never won. This was discussed earlier in the thread.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 9:45 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
Right, but Roger Deakins has been nominated 13 times for an academy award for cinematography.
And honestly, if he didn't win for:
No Country
The Man Who Wasn't There
Fargo
Skyfall
O' Brother
?
I don't see it for this film.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 10:05 am to Ace Midnight
Who the hell else is going to get it? The only one I can think of is Dunkirk.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 10:22 am to Ace Midnight
quote:
K had almost no depth - and I don't blame that on Gosling
This is fricking laughable. You're blinding yourself because of your clear near religious reverence for the first film. Seriously, you are coming off borderline psychotic with this.
K had no depth? He is the pinnochio of the story. He is nuanced in his entire approach to the world which is why they have to constantly bring him back to baseline. He clearly has an emotional connection with Joi at the beginning of the movie, that moves to love. He battles internally with his identity, going from happy being a machine, to furious at being a machine and believing himself at least part human, to accepting he's a machine with the ability to act humanely. His character arc is fricking incredible and to argue he has no depth is farcical at best, delusional at worst.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 10:46 am to OMLandshark
quote:
Who the hell else is going to get it?
He lost with Fargo to The English Patient.
He lost with O Brother to Crouching Tiger.
He had two films lose to There Will Be Blood in 2007 (Assassination of Jesse James AND No Country)
Skyfall lost to life of freakin Pi.
Unbroken lost to Bird Man
They will find a way to give it to someone other than Deakins - they ALWAYS have - he must have pissed someone off at some point.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 10:55 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
K had no depth?
Yes. He pursues a straight line, with only superficial deviations and deceptions.
He is the analogue to Batty - or a composite of Batty and Deckard from the original film, if you will.
Batty - led an insurrection (off-screen), killing an unknown number of humans. He arrives on Earth and kills Tyrell in a rage, Sebastian as kind of a reluctant necessity and then spares Deckard (the guy he really had a reason to hate/kill, after the murder of his 2, unarmed, female acquaintances). He demonstrates more soul than any human (or ostensibly human) character we encounter, except possibly Gaff.
Deckard - like he dropped out of the sky - a guy with no purpose, no identity until he is reluctantly brought back into service as a killer - a job he is good at, but does not really enjoy (and it shows). He falls for a replicant (not in the business, "the business"), lucks up in killing 1 unarmed female replicant, nearly gets killed by Leon, but for Rachael's intervention would have been, then gets caught off guard by Pris (the least combat capable of the four) and is lucky to survive that encounter.
Essentially emotionally dead after facing Pris, Deckard offers only token resistance to Roy (although armed), and then flees for his life.
K didn't embody any of these things - more or less the dead emotional response of Deckard from the first film (and I'm sure he was directed in this fashion) - but there was no story - no ambiguity, hell no real conflict, except the literal ones with the junk dwellers and Luv. He solved a simple puzzle that was implanted (incorrectly) - at the end, he did value Deckard's life in a similar way to Batty. There is a lot of formal reflection of form here, but with little substance. K's motivations and emotions were clear and predictable. Totally unlike Deckard and especially Batty from the original.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 10:58 am
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:25 am to Ace Midnight
I'm not saying that you're completely wrong, but you're coming across as giving the original a ton of leeway and credit for its depth and taking any and all attempts at us giving the new one depth and completely dismissing it because you feel like it.
That's how it comes across anyway.
That's how it comes across anyway.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:49 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
I'm not saying that you're completely wrong, but you're coming across as giving the original a ton of leeway and credit for its depth and taking any and all attempts at us giving the new one depth and completely dismissing it because you feel like it.
No. He's completely wrong. So far wrong that I am now just flat going to say it: you never would have liked this movie, Ace. It was never going to live up to your reverence for the original. You had your mind made up going in and you are taking great pains to hold on to that view. At this point, I'm writing off, as I think everyone should, your opinion on this movie. It is foolish to try to convince you otherwise. You literally just compared K to Roy while saying Roy has more soul than anyone in the first film, but K has none. You've become utterly nonsensical.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:52 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
all attempts at us giving the new one depth and completely dismissing it because you feel like it.
I hope I'm not coming across as "completely dismissing" it - I'm trying to give credit where I can. 2049 isn't the worst film I've ever seen and certainly not the worst sequel of a beloved classic. I respect the reverence it has for the original - hell even the original didn't find its legs until it was tweaked for the (not really) Director's Cut and again for the Final Cut. So, while I make it no secret that The Final Cut version of Blade Runner is almost certainly my favorite film at this point - 2049 is really just a failure of story.
It didn't help that it ran almost 3 hours with that failure of a story. I've credited the visuals - to a point. That's big shoulders to stand on, and Deakins may be my favorite working cinematographer right now. Still too bright, but there are even disagreements with fans of it on that point.
So, aside from the puzzle/non-puzzle twist - that was clear effort to add some (needed) depth to K - who might as well been a wooden mannequin without that twist. (Similar criticisms were made about Ford's performance in the original), you had this hologram relationship that parallels Deckard and Rachael from 30 years ago. For me, it was weak.
There's no good reason for that not to have been just the street urchin girl (a really poor reflection of Pris, and since K was supposed to be Batty, I guess that leaves Drax as Leon). They ended up with big budget film's worst threesome - ever - in trying to combine those stories, anyway. And after seeing the hologram stuff for years on (real) Star Trek products, I guess I'm just not as receptive to that story.
The story was really disjointed and I get that there needs to be a certain formula with these things - certain action beats - we have to have a vehicular chase/crash sequence. We have to have a pitched outdoor battle - but none of that really fit the context - all the more jarring that it is in a Blade Runner film. Plus, those outdoor, "daylight" scenes were too bright and just counter to the whole vibe of what I think of as Blade Runner.
Didn't make it any shorter, or more punchy, that's for sure.
There are things to like about 2049 - but it is a pale reflection, at best, to the original - with all due respect to those who think is "way better" or "surpasses in every way" or is somehow the greatest picture of all time. It's not those folks' fault, anyway - Hollywood has gotten so out of the habit of making great films that ANYTHING watchable looks good by comparison.
Just my $0.02 - as a humble, long-time fan of Blade Runner.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 11:56 am to LoveThatMoney
quote:
You literally just compared K to Roy while saying Roy has more soul than anyone in the first film, but K has none. You've become utterly nonsensical.
My favorite moment in both films are the deaths of Roy and K - obviously for drastically different reasons (
).Posted on 10/13/17 at 12:02 pm to LoveThatMoney
quote:
you never would have liked this movie, Ace.
I so badly wanted to like it. So very badly. I tried to temper expectations.
I'm not even mad. Villeneuve tried and he is definitely not a hack. It's almost a team to do it I could have put together myself.
quote:
You had your mind made up going in and you are taking great pains to hold on to that view.
I was a little put off by that bright opening scene, but I dug the interior at Drax's, the way they set the mystery up - even that fight, although pretty brutal and early, kind of echoed Leon and Holden (Morgan Paull - interesting story, he was hired to help Ridley read for auditions with actresses because of his resemblance and particularly his voice resemblance to Harrison Ford - when the time came to cast Holden, he was an easy choice).
But, the longer that movie went on - the worse it got - story wise. Again, I'm not slamming the acting like some are - Gosling and Leto (I'm definitely not a fan of the latter, and don't think of the former as much of a serious actor, although I don't dislike him) were fine - better than fine.
Just a weak, weak story that fell into classic clichés at every turn. The only thing that went against that trend was the twist - I recall saying that, "That's pretty clever" to Mrs. Midnight.
Posted on 10/13/17 at 12:05 pm to Ace Midnight
your comments on this board will be lost...like tears...in rain....
Posted on 10/13/17 at 12:06 pm to Pilot Tiger
quote:
your comments on this board will be lost...like tears...in rain....
I know - I told Mrs. Midnight, "I'm going to the board and just say, 'Meh.'" She said, essentially, "You're incapable of letting it go at that."
Full disclosure, "Meh" is pretty much how Mrs. Midnight feels about 2049 as well - of course, it took her a long time to appreciate the original - dozens of viewings and hours of Ace's analysis will do that.
ETA: Have I mentioned recently that my family refuses to discuss the so-called Star Trek (2009) film with me, except my son, who has flipped from being a fan to hating it, although obviously not as much as I do.
This post was edited on 10/13/17 at 12:09 pm
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News