[movie] Blade Runner 2049

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sat Sep 30, 2017 9:47 am

By coincidence:

I give my Eng 101 classes an assignment where they write an analytical review dealing with different facets (genre, themes, style, audience, context, etc) of a book/movie/TV series/etc. A few years ago I wanted to show them how it was done, so I wrote my own version of the assignment dealing with Blade Runner.

In the past, there have never been more than a few students in the room who have heard of the movie.

This year all the young ladies are Ryan Gosling fans, so they've all heard of BR2049, but most of them have no idea it's a sequel to anything.

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:35 pm

I expected this to get midnight showing treatment in several areas last night.

I guess no one made it to see?

I'm finding a time this weekend to go see it--really looking forward to it, especially with all of the positive buzz.

On a side note, I'm about 1/3 of the way through Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and I'm surprised at the similarities to the movie. It's both the same and different together. Some names have been slightly changed or are exactly the same.

Moliere · Post by **Moliere** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:44 pm

Honest Trailers - Blade Runner

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 12:50 pm

Looking forward to the Director's Cut.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:11 pm

Jeff V wrote:Looking forward to the Director's Cut.

Of BR2049? There won't be one. The theatrical version is the Director's Cut.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 1:45 pm

pr0ner wrote:
Jeff V wrote:Looking forward to the Director's Cut.
Of BR2049? There won't be one. The theatrical version is the Director's Cut.

OK, the Extended Edition then. They're gonna find some way to keep milking that cash cow.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 2:22 pm

Ryan and Harrison have an amazingly funny interview in Britain

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Fri Oct 06, 2017 6:29 pm

Redfive wrote:I expected this to get midnight showing treatment in several areas last night.

I guess no one made it to see?

I'm finding a time this weekend to go see it--really looking forward to it, especially with all of the positive buzz.

On a side note, I'm about 1/3 of the way through Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep and I'm surprised at the similarities to the movie. It's both the same and different together. Some names have been slightly changed or are exactly the same.

My theater had a double billing last night. I could not do that.

Saw it this morning and loved it. I didn't feel as much for these replicants, but everything else was great. Nearly every scene and set was delectable.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Sat Oct 07, 2017 8:28 pm

Saw this this afternoon. It is pretty spectacular.

My only complaint is that the volume was so loud in the theater that I might have busted an eardrum or two.

I am a bit confused about one part though:

Spoiler:

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:16 am

Without spoilers is Rick Deckard's 'status' dealt with?

Making time for this tomorrow.

naednek · Post by **naednek** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 12:28 am

$13 million on the first night... Not a good start.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:53 am

Redfive wrote:Without spoilers is Rick Deckard's 'status' dealt with?

Making time for this tomorrow.

I would be comfortable saying yes.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 1:58 am

Ralph-Wiggum wrote:Saw this this afternoon. It is pretty spectacular.

My only complaint is that the volume was so loud in the theater that I might have busted an eardrum or two.

I am a bit confused about one part though:
Spoiler:
how/why did the woman know to implant her memories in another replicant? And was it just a coincidence that they were implanted in K?

Yeah, that sound was something else. It definitely resolved the problem of the people chewing popcorn loudly behind us.

Spoiler:

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 2:44 am

naednek wrote:$13 million on the first night... Not a good start.

It's almost 3 hours. I really want to see it, but I'm not sure I want to see 3 hours of it without a pause button.

Somewhere I read the story of the title. PKD never mentioned "blade runners" in Do Androids Dream..., so where did that come from?

Here's an abridged version from memory.

In the '50s a working physician wrote sf on the side. It was competent stuff for the pulp era and he made a good enough living to quit his day job. The story that concerns us was called The Blade Runners. It was about a future dystopia where citizens had to turn to a black market to get medical care because only the rich could afford it. The black market docs were called blade runners, as in have-scalpel, will-travel.

Later (1960s I think) William S Burroughs, of all people, was hired to turn it into a movie. His screenplay, which involved two parallel stories shown simultaneously on two screens, was unfilmable. To salvage a few bucks it was re-titled Blade Runner: The Movie and novelized.

Fast forward to the '80s. PKD's story is being turned into a screenplay. The producer drops by the writers' dungeon one day and wonders what Decker is. Writer replies that he's a detective. "Sure, but what kind of detective? He needs a title." Writer needs to come up with something in a hurry. Looks at his bookshelf. Spots the Burroughs book. "Blade runner" polls well with the room, so that's what Decker is. It doesn't mean anything, but it sounds cool. One of the versions of the original movie has a weak throwaway line about "running on the edge of the blade" or something, but that's just grafted on.

I might have bungled a detail or two in there, but that's the gist of it. I think PKD would like the randomness, although I like his title better myself.

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 6:48 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Redfive wrote:Without spoilers is Rick Deckard's 'status' dealt with?

Making time for this tomorrow.
I would be comfortable saying yes.

Leaving for the theater in about 30 min, looking forward to it.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:08 pm

Kraken wrote:
naednek wrote:$13 million on the first night... Not a good start.
It's almost 3 hours. I really want to see it, but I'm not sure I want to see 3 hours of it without a pause button.

Somewhere I read the story of the title. PKD never mentioned "blade runners" in Do Androids Dream..., so where did that come from?

Here's an abridged version from memory.

In the '50s a working physician wrote sf on the side. It was competent stuff for the pulp era and he made a good enough living to quit his day job. The story that concerns us was called The Blade Runners. It was about a future dystopia where citizens had to turn to a black market to get medical care because only the rich could afford it. The black market docs were called blade runners, as in have-scalpel, will-travel.

Later (1960s I think) William S Burroughs, of all people, was hired to turn it into a movie. His screenplay, which involved two parallel stories shown simultaneously on two screens, was unfilmable. To salvage a few bucks it was re-titled Blade Runner: The Movie and novelized.

Fast forward to the '80s. PKD's story is being turned into a screenplay. The producer drops by the writers' dungeon one day and wonders what Decker is. Writer replies that he's a detective. "Sure, but what kind of detective? He needs a title." Writer needs to come up with something in a hurry. Looks at his bookshelf. Spots the Burroughs book. "Blade runner" polls well with the room, so that's what Decker is. It doesn't mean anything, but it sounds cool. One of the versions of the original movie has a weak throwaway line about "running on the edge of the blade" or something, but that's just grafted on.

I might have bungled a detail or two in there, but that's the gist of it. I think PKD would like the randomness, although I like his title better myself.

I've heard a similar account (title borrowed from an unrelated SF project) too.

PKD had nothing to do with it, and no one has ever explained why a lavish, hyper-produced, big-budget SF movie starring Harrison Ford in the wake of SW and TESB would have been so sloppy with the title, but there you go.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:15 pm

Just watched the original Blade Runner (Final Cut) with my kids this afternoon. We'll go see 2049 next weekend.

I spoiled Deckard's identity with my 13-year-old some months ago during a conversation about androids and SF. My 11-year-old wasn't part of that conversation, and today during the end credits I asked him what the unicorn origami meant.

11yo: "The other detective made it."

me: "Why?"

11yo: "He was making them all through the movie."

me: "Why a unicorn, though?"

11yo: "Well, Deckard had that dream at the piano."

me: "How did the other detective know about Deckard's dream?"

11yo: "... ..." [eyes go wide as saucers] "Deckard is a Replicant!"

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:50 pm

Just a note, 2049 is a harder "R" rated movie than the original. More profanity, more nudity, more violence. I'd be prepared for that, just in case.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 7:55 pm

I think the world is backwards. The entire population are replicants and dont know it with only a few who are real humans.

Hope to see this next week. If I cant then I wont get to until dvd or stream.

MonkeyFinger · Post by **MonkeyFinger** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:47 pm

pr0ner wrote:Just a note, 2049 is a harder "R" rated movie than the original. More profanity, more nudity, more violence. I'd be prepared for that, just in case.

Just saw it. More violence and nudity, yes, but don't recall any profanity.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:49 pm

It won't be our boys' first R-rated movie, and (if the parental review sites are to be relied upon) it won't be anything we can't frankly discuss.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 8:49 pm

pr0ner wrote:Just a note, 2049 is a harder "R" rated movie than the original. More profanity, more nudity, more violence. I'd be prepared for that, just in case.

Nice try. Still not practical for me to see it until it comes on video.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:48 pm

MonkeyFinger wrote:
pr0ner wrote:Just a note, 2049 is a harder "R" rated movie than the original. More profanity, more nudity, more violence. I'd be prepared for that, just in case.
Just saw it. More violence and nudity, yes, but don't recall any profanity.

You missed all of Robin Wright's f-bombs?

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Sun Oct 08, 2017 11:48 pm

Holman wrote:It won't be our boys' first R-rated movie, and (if the parental review sites are to be relied upon) it won't be anything we can't frankly discuss.

Fair enough. Figured it was worth pointing out!

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 6:18 am

pr0ner wrote:
Holman wrote:It won't be our boys' first R-rated movie, and (if the parental review sites are to be relied upon) it won't be anything we can't frankly discuss.
Fair enough. Figured it was worth pointing out!

Appreciated!

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 9:29 am

Saw it last night and thought it was great. The atmosphere is very true to the original movie and I think they do a nice job of making it a direct sequel rather than just an attempt to cash in.

I hope it does well at the box office though I don't know if I need to see the further sequel(s) that they have clearly set up.

EDIT: Also, and this isn't a judgement on anyone else, but I would definitely not bring my 13 year old to see this.

JSHAW · Post by **JSHAW** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 11:33 am

WHY do people think the more money a movie makes means it's a good or bad movie?
What's a great movie to one person is another person's shitty movie. It's all opinion.

People just aren't running out immediately and wasting their money on movies these days. There's too many other options for
entertainment, especially when people can get their movies cheaper through streaming services, or just wait it out for
pay cable-hbo/cinemax/showtime, or bluray and dvd.

There's just no way in hell that Blade Runner 2049 is going to make truckload ass loads of money that were expected by the bean counters
at the studios. Not too many from the current generation want to sit though a 2 hour 45 minute movie on something they don't give a shit about.

For the record, I'm going to see it this coming weekend. (saw original Blade Runner in theater, and own several versions of the movie on dvd)

MonkeyFinger · Post by **MonkeyFinger** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:38 pm

pr0ner wrote:
MonkeyFinger wrote:
pr0ner wrote:Just a note, 2049 is a harder "R" rated movie than the original. More profanity, more nudity, more violence. I'd be prepared for that, just in case.
Just saw it. More violence and nudity, yes, but don't recall any profanity.
You missed all of Robin Wright's f-bombs?

Ha! I... guess so. Too much like my normal life for it to stand out, I guess.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:48 pm

MonkeyFinger wrote:
pr0ner wrote:
MonkeyFinger wrote:
pr0ner wrote:Just a note, 2049 is a harder "R" rated movie than the original. More profanity, more nudity, more violence. I'd be prepared for that, just in case.
Just saw it. More violence and nudity, yes, but don't recall any profanity.
You missed all of Robin Wright's f-bombs?
Ha! I... guess so. Too much like my normal life for it to stand out, I guess.

Haha. That's pretty funny!

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 12:56 pm

JSHAW wrote:WHY do people think the more money a movie makes means it's a good or bad movie?
What's a great movie to one person is another person's shitty movie. It's all opinion.

People just aren't running out immediately and wasting their money on movies these days. There's too many other options for
entertainment, especially when people can get their movies cheaper through streaming services, or just wait it out for
pay cable-hbo/cinemax/showtime, or bluray and dvd.

There's just no way in hell that Blade Runner 2049 is going to make truckload ass loads of money that were expected by the bean counters
at the studios. Not too many from the current generation want to sit though a 2 hour 45 minute movie on something they don't give a shit about.

For the record, I'm going to see it this coming weekend. (saw original Blade Runner in theater, and own several versions of the movie on dvd)

Don't know if this was directed at me but I did mention the box office and this post is right after mine..so

Actually, this can't be directed at me because I clearly said I thought it was great and my box office comment was separate and had to do with any future sequels, so carry on

And Alefroth:

Spoiler:

Also

Spoiler:

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:05 pm

Regarding Deckard:

Spoiler:

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 1:11 pm

pr0ner wrote:Regarding Deckard:

Spoiler:
How could he be a Replicant if Replicants had a limited lifespan when Deckard would have been made?
Blade Runner 2049 is 30 years after the original film. Wouldn't a Replicant Deckard be long since dead?

Spoiler:

Malificent · Post by **Malificent** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:15 pm

pr0ner wrote:Regarding Deckard:

Spoiler:
How could he be a Replicant if Replicants had a limited lifespan when Deckard would have been made?
Blade Runner 2049 is 30 years after the original film. Wouldn't a Replicant Deckard be long since dead?

Spoiler:
Rachel and Deckard were both from the model line that were designed to live normal human lifespans. That adherence to making this line so close to humans is pretty much what spawns the entire plot of the movie, really.

Jaymann · Post by **Jaymann** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:10 pm

Malificent wrote:
pr0ner wrote:Regarding Deckard:

Spoiler:
How could he be a Replicant if Replicants had a limited lifespan when Deckard would have been made?
Blade Runner 2049 is 30 years after the original film. Wouldn't a Replicant Deckard be long since dead?

Spoiler:
Rachel and Deckard were both from the model line that were designed to live normal human lifespans. That adherence to making this line so close to humans is pretty much what spawns the entire plot of the movie, really.

'
Wait a minute, how does that fit with:

Spoiler:

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 3:10 pm

To Malificent:

Spoiler:

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:31 pm

Spoiler:

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Mon Oct 09, 2017 8:48 pm

Alefroth wrote:
Spoiler:
Replicants are supposed to have superior strength, yet Deckard couldn't free himself from the bonds at the end of the movie. It took a known replicant to do that.

Spoiler:

MonkeyFinger · Post by **MonkeyFinger** » Tue Oct 10, 2017 12:56 am

Spoiler:

Redfive · Post by **Redfive** » Tue Oct 10, 2017 1:10 pm

MonkeyFinger wrote:
Spoiler:
Where / when did Ridley ever say Deckard was a replicant? I just watched the 2007 "Final Cut" version of the original movie and in the introduction he said they included the unicorn dream sequence "to suggest that Deckard might be a replicant". Suggest and might be... did he say something later to firm that up a bit?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Oct 10, 2017 4:10 pm

pr0ner wrote:To Malificent:

Spoiler:
Where does the evidence that Deckard and Rachel are part of a different model line come from? I don't recall that ever being mentioned or alluded to anywhere in BR.

It's made clear in BR2049. Some might call it a retcon, but I think it works.