|
I always liked the idea that Gaff was monitoring Deckard as part of some kind of pilot program of introducing replicants into the police force. I like the way that it underscores the postmodern dimensions of the film (representations replacing reality, total commodification as the logical endgame of late capitalism, etc).
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 23:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
ElectricSheep posted:Maybe he was just programmed as such in order to be effective at his job? If you fall on the whole "he's a replicant" side of the debate, of course. I'm firmly in the "doesn't matter" camp on whether or not Deckard is a replicant, but even supposing he was programmed, what does it say about our humanity that having the burden of memory made him a petty shitbag while the childlike Nexus 6 had the fierce will to live.
|
|
#
?
Oct 2, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
It works either way anyway, if he's human then yeah he's a typical lovely human, if he's a replicant, then just by existing in an environment where he interacts with folks like Bryant makes him a lovely human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 00:19
|
|
|
Is blade runner on Netflix? What's the "good version?" Figure I should watch it again
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 11:08
|
|
|
The Final Cut is the latest and most definitive version of Blade Runner. Director's Cut if you can't get your hands on that. The rest are interesting curiosities but are weaker presentations of the film overall.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 11:54
|
|
|
trying to avoid spoilers and such for this but what's the 411 on which version to go see? I hate 3D so would prefer 2D but if the 3D is actually good and the definitive version then I guess I'd go see that one with ATMOS and all the bells and whistles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 13:55
|
|
|
I posted about this on the last page
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:16
|
|
|
Will the fake IMAX be playing the 1.9:1 ratio or the 2.39:1? They seem like they have taller screens but they could just be closer. Either way I'm gonna see the normal ratio
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 14:33
|
|
|
Penpal posted:Will the fake IMAX be playing the 1.9:1 ratio or the 2.39:1? They seem like they have taller screens but they could just be closer. Either way I'm gonna see the normal ratio Vegetable posted:I posted about this on the last page
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:10
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:I posted about this on the last page Vegetable posted:I did some research about what's the best way to watch this film. Awesome, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 16:19
|
|
|
Oh yeah, I was asking if there was a distinction between mpx imax and bigass imax, and I googled it to find out mpx is just bigger widescreen and not scaled down boxy rectangle. I've only ever been to one real IMAX theatre so the aspect ratio distinction wasn't jumping out at me visually. Going to see it in vanilla and then mpx imax anyway, the brightness of the projection is a little low on some of the screens at my theatre, it was pretty bad for Mother! and BR isn't going to be the brightest film ever
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:06
|
|
|
Interestingly, unless my local (real) IMAX has things wrong, the IMAX print is 2D too. Even with the wrong aspect ratio in play I think that's the one I'll go see it at for the most impact.
|
|
#
?
Oct 3, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
I'm watching Blade Runner. It's the 3rd time I've tried to watch this film. I'm stricken now (for a third time) by how slow-moving and boring it is. This movie would never have gotten off the ground with the kind of budget it had in today's Holywood. There's something so stifling about the film. Claustrophobic. I feel many of the films of the 80s feel like this. Robocop. Batman. They're all very creepy. Depicting depressing run-down futures that feature brutalist architecture and complete moral breakdown of society. What is it about the 80s that made this so loving commonplace? In my opinion, it really doesn't make for an optimal movie.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:53
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:There's something so stifling about the film. Claustrophobic. I feel many of the films of the 80s feel like this. Robocop. Batman. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 03:57
|
|
|
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11929436 :iamafag:
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:10
|
|
|
I'm sorry but Blade Runner is really like the Scarlet Letter of Science Fiction film. The pacing is extremely slow. Probably some of the slowest pacing I've ever seen in a movie. I mean I'd watch 2001 over Blade Runner any single day of the year and enjoy it. ThisIsWhyTrumpWon fucked around with this message at 04:34 on Oct 4, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:18
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11929436 I actually noticed this when I made the mistake of reading some comment sections for recent Blade Runner related news - people seem to be tripping over themselves to say how much they don't like it. They seem really proud of this, like it's rebellious in some way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:42
|
|
|
Don't sit and wait for the plot in blade runner. You have to just flow with the atmosphere and visuals/music. Really the plot is very simple, and honestly I am not sure there really is enough to support the cinematic blade runner universe they are trying to create. Those short films were rough...
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 04:55
|
|
|
Ridley Scott should of made a Foundation movie instead of Blade Runner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 05:02
|
|
|
Some of the reviews coming from prominent review publications have expressed some sense of being underwhelmed, so I'd use that to moderate all the hype.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:http://www.nzherald.co.nz/entertainment/news/article.cfm?c_id=1501119&objectid=11929436 I want to do what Roy does to Tyrell to Rachel (the Rachel in that article). What I am saying is that I want to 28-Days-Later-eye-gouge her to death
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
I put Blade Runner on 9 times before I actually made it through the film. Every time apart from the 9th I fell asleep and woke up during the credits... I have no idea what it is about that film but it seems to inspire sleep in me, I've never fallen asleep watching any other film in my entire life. great film but yeah, slowwwwwwwwwwww
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 10:49
|
|
|
I never really felt that Blade Runner was particularly slow. Sure, the film takes time to establish mood and setting, but it's also constantly moving forward and introducing new elements. If that's slow, what would you call a Weerasethakul or Tarkovsky film?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 11:09
|
|
|
I don't get it either. Maybe people are expecting an action movie or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 13:02
|
|
|
Ratios and Tendency posted:I don't get it either. Maybe people are expecting an action movie or something. Unfortunately a lot of the trailers make 2049 look like an action movie. I mean, I love action movies, but that's really not what Blade Runner was about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 13:04
|
|
|
The trailer companies basically have no faith in cutting trailers for Villeneuve's movies that don't make them look like the most generic, crowd-pleasing movies that you can make with footage. I mean hey, they do a great job of that but they usually don't represent the movies well. Sicario's trailer was also very action oriented.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 13:35
|
|
|
I'm all for trailers misrepresenting films to get butts in seats. Spring Breakers owes its box office to some trailer trickery.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 13:37
|
|
|
Samuel Clemens posted:I never really felt that Blade Runner was particularly slow. Sure, the film takes time to establish mood and setting, but it's also constantly moving forward and introducing new elements. If that's slow, what would you call a Weerasethakul or Tarkovsky film? Blade Runner is only two hours long. Every big dumb comic book movie of the past 10 years has a longer runtime and worse pacing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 14:39
|
|
|
Blade Snoozer
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Blade Runner is only two hours long. Every big dumb comic book movie of the past 10 years has a longer runtime and worse pacing. There have been so few sci-fi movies that aren't just action movies with a different backdrop in the last 30 years that I think some people can't wrap their heads around how it's in the future, but not pew-pew jokey joke all the time. I just re-watched the Final Cut version last night, it's not a fast paced movie or anything but it's hardly OMG SOOOOOOOO SLOW either.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 15:35
|
|
|
I imagine that if some of you ever watched a Bela Tarr film it would literally kill you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 16:12
|
|
|
Vegetable posted:I'm all for trailers misrepresenting films to get butts in seats. Spring Breakers owes its box office to some trailer trickery. Same. I like when trailers trick people into seeing a good movie and then they get mad about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 16:18
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:I'm watching Blade Runner. It's the 3rd time I've tried to watch this film. Man I just can't watch Alien, everyone talks about this very lived-in future but all I'm watching is some blue-collar workers having a space meal. Bo-ring. The atmosphere basically is the whole movie. If you can get through the opening full of Vangelis and light making noise and fire and eyeball imagery and your brain hasn't completely shut off so that your butt is glued to the seat, Blade runner isn't the film for you. As for why, it's not difficult to find the whole history. The future used to always be flashy and clean and hopeful. Think Flash Gordon. Then Star Wars happened, and everything felt very lived-in like it had centuries of history. Then Ridley Scott happened and the future was totally run-down and full of garbage (Alien, Blade Runner). This was due in part to so much of the politics of the 70s/80s/90s loving sucking and everybody felt like things were going to poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 17:44
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:Sorry, everything is boring now, movies are boring, we can't scare our dumb idiot viewers with something they aren't expecting. For a blockbuster, yeah probably The Hunger Games. hump day bitches! posted:I really liked it but I it felt like one of those old 90's outher limits episode stretched over 90 minutes.It says a lot about Villenueve that he was capable of getting a solid 7-8 out of such flimsy premise. LesterGroans posted:Same. I like when trailers trick people into seeing a good movie and then they get mad about it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 19:39
|
|
|
ThisIsWhyTrumpWon posted:Ridley Scott should of made a Foundation movie instead of Blade Runner. Kind want to visit the timeline where he got to do his NC-17 for mega graphic violence Blood Meridian movie 2010-ish.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
ok so last night i attended a premiere event organised by sony with johnnie walker, they served these disgusting cocktails (lol) which are a thin sheer of JW with dry ice and caramel popcorn. it's like drinking candy! also they served neon blue and green drinks which are just lemonade spiked with lots of colouring movie is good but manage expectations especially if you read headlines that "wow it's the sci-fi masterpiece you've been waiting for forever". it suffers a little from being anchored by a beloved film but nowhere as badly as the new Star Wars movies are. the cinematography is loving GORGEOUS, everything is atmospheric as gently caress and you definitely get the feel that they allow the camera to linger a little just letting you appreciate the vistas they are creating as a person slowly steps about. unfortunately this makes the movie slow and lol if you already think the first movie was unbearably that. the >3 hour film length explains why they were serving JW with coffee to people! the ford-gosling fight scene is great. i'd say that alone is worth watching in the cinema but the whole movie is just so beautiful. plot was alright, i like it a lot but maybe not as good as Arrival incredible fact: harrison ford looked like he was actually acting instead of phoning it in like in Ep7. admittedly he doesn't get to spout cool quips ("that's not how it works!") but they make him emote and do not just action hero poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
There's a showing at 1.30pm, but I gotta pick my son up from school at 3 and won't get the chance to go again for a few days hnnnngnngng
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 03:42
|
|
|
Nothing too specific, spoilered just in case you want to remain totally pure and avoid my complaints. Sony Pictures flashed up at the start and I was like wtf sucked in you loving idiot and my stomach sank.  It's 3 hours long, you've seen the cool shots in the trailer and I seriously wish we could move past Harrison Ford already loving hell gently caress off. It's Villeneuve so it's nowhere near trash or anything and it looks good but jeez, I'd say temper any expectations.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 04:25
|
|
|
I went and saw it today. I thought it was spectacular and amazingly captivating, both visually and emotionally. The visuals in the movie are some of the best I think I've ever seen. I'm actually finding it hard to think of a movie that I can say had better imagery and was able to capture the feel for the different locations as well as Blade Runner 2049. The score worked really well with the cinematography as well and just left me feeling in awe in a bunch of places. Not really a spoiler, but I'll spoiler it anyway: The pacing is probably a little bit slow, but I honestly thought it worked to the credit of the movie and helped build the gravitas and suspense in a lot of scenes. I can see how some people might not like it, but it worked for me Honestly, probably one of the best movies I've seen in the last few years. PotatoManJack fucked around with this message at 10:11 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 10:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 00:08 |
|
|
Loved it. Probably my favourite 'noove. It's a great IMAX movie. The soundtrack just explodes at ya. Thankfully (at my theater at least) they didn't force the 3D version on you for large format. For the Bluray, I'd love for them to do a gag audio track with narration like the original's theatrical version. edit: Deckard/Replicant talk for those who've seen the movie. So, Rachel was a new beta model of Tyrell's capable of reproduction, but Deckard presumably wouldn't have been the male equivalent, and if he wasn't also some experimental model, he wouldn't have been able to live this long. (e: actually, looking back at the Batty/Tyrell scene in the original, the problem is adjusting life-span after it's been set. I guess if he was a super secret Replicant, he could have just not had a limit put in.) He also didn't seem to have lost any memories from the blackout event. Was he pretty safely revealed as human? I can't remember much from the underground resistance or Leto/Ford scenes right now. Did those point back to robot? Teenage Fansub fucked around with this message at 12:19 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 11:12
|
|
