Blade Runner 2049

[Cikomyr]

So the new Blade Runner will reach theater next week, and early reviews have started to pour in early.

So far, there seems to be some recurrence across 3 points:

1- Justifying the existence of this addition to what was seen a much.. definitive film, that seemes complete.
2- the pacing of the movie is slow, contemplative and meditative
3- the visuals are absolutely stunning

Color me intruigued. I am a big fan of Denis Villeneuve's sci fi work (plus, he is a fellow Quebecois conpatriot). Arrival was brilliant, i WILL see this movie, and i am already excited for Villeneuve's Dune project.

[Scowling Dragon]

As I heard said:

Even if this is the divine wunderkind of a sequel its still a sequel that just didnt need to exist.

I recomend nobody sees it out of that principle alone, unless your fine with a constantly decreasing ratio of original film/ sequel or reboot.

[Cikomyr]

As I heard said:

Even if this is the divine wunderkind of a sequel its still a sequel that just didnt need to exist.

I recomend nobody sees it out of that principle alone, unless your fine with a constantly decreasing ratio of original film/ sequel or reboot.

This is a Dogma. And I reject dogmatic approaches to dealing with things.

Yhea, lets boycott the movie made with effort, skill and love of the original material. Because clearly, if we boycott THOSE, then the *real* problem of cheap cash-in mindless sequels will go away.

I am sorry, but this is stupid rationale.

[JoshL]

Honestly, I'm just glad Scott isn't doing it. Once upon a time, he was one of my favorite directors. Legend is still, my favorite movie, and with Alien, Blade Runner, the Duelists and Thelma & Louise, he certainly did more than a good number of classics. But I haven't been super crazy about anything he's done since Gladiator (I like the new Aliens and the Martian okay, just don't love them. And Black Hawk Down is a good movie, just not my cup of tea). So I like the world, and the concepts, the original film is brilliant, and while a sequel isn't necessary, I'm interested in giving it a shot. Looks beautiful.

Color me intruigued. I am a big fan of Denis Villeneuve's sci fi work (plus, he is a fellow Quebecois conpatriot). Arrival was brilliant, i WILL see this movie, and i am already excited for Villeneuve's Dune project.

I am definitely on board for this. I would love to see a really good Dune. I enjoy the Lynch and tv adaptations for what they are, but neither are really great adaptations. I also hope he can do the whole thing, because I think it really picks up steam in book 4. Also, I'd like to see a better writer do the two post-Frank books. I love how the story ends, but the actual writing is painfully bad in those!

[paddyfool]

I'd agree with Cykomar - if you refused to ever see sequels or reboots, you'd be missing out on a lot of good movies, from Empire Strikes Back and Aliens to Fury Road. 90% of sequels/reboots of good movies are cr**, but 90% of everything is cr**. This would seem to fall into the other 10%.

On another note in this thread, I really liked the Martian, but I think all the seeds of genius in that movie were planted in the original book. However, I gave up on the alien movies after Prometheus.

[Scowling Dragon]

This is a Dogma.

For me its principle. Some things just need to end for an end experience.
Ends are important in it of themselves. Otherwise, it will become used up throwaway entertainment, and begin to damage themselves as a whole.

Tolkien could have made the sequels to the LOTR stories, but mostly threw them out because he felt that no matter when they would just altogether ruin the collective. And he was right.

Blade Runner is a story that DOES NOT NEED A SEQUEL

[Cikomyr]

For me its principle. Some things just need to end for an end experience.
Ends are important in it of themselves.

I kind of agree with your premise. Ends are important things. This is why i dislike when an ended story gets dragged along, eventually ruining the point of the original story. Ex: the Matrix Sequels

However, this isnt what is happening. This is not a continuation/dragging of the original Blade Runner.. its a new story, merely using the setting (and some character) of the original. Think like Aliens. Or maybe Toy Story 2. Or The Road Warrior/Fury Road.

[DanyBallon]

For me its principle. Some things just need to end for an end experience.
Ends are important in it of themselves. Otherwise, it will become used up throwaway entertainment, and begin to damage themselves as a whole.

Tolkien could have made the sequels to the LOTR stories, but mostly threw them out because he felt that no matter when they would just altogether ruin the collective. And he was right.

Blade Runner is a story that DOES NOT NEED A SEQUEL

I kind of agree with your premise. Ends are important things. This is why i dislike when an ended story gets dragged along, eventually ruining the point of the original story. Ex: the Matrix Sequels

However, this isnt what is happening. This is not a continuation/dragging of the original Blade Runner.. its a new story, merely using the setting (and some character) of the original. Think like Aliens. Or maybe Toy Story 2. Or The Road Warrior/Fury Road.

I agree with Cikomir. I you want to use a Middle Earth analogy, it would be like if you wouldn't read LotR because the Hobbit happened before.
Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 are in the same setting but take place at different moment in the storyline, and elements of the original leads to the recent movie, the same as the Hobbit set things in place for LotR.

[Scowling Dragon]

However, this isnt what is happening. This is not a continuation/dragging of the original Blade Runner.. its a new story, merely using the setting (and some character) of the original. Think like Aliens. Or maybe Toy Story 2. Or The Road Warrior/Fury Road.

So...A Sequel. What you described is pretty much 100% a sequel.

And certain things benefit from expansion and certain things don't. Aliens is a fun movie, but if you where a fan of Alien as Alien, then Aliens was a deep betrayal of it as a film. Then it burn't itself out and is a giant pile of garbage.
Blade Runner is, even MORE, thinking and a rare type of movie. It would be a massive Shame for Blade Runner to Blade Runners.

What I mean, is that Blade Runner is much more self-contained. It doesn't need expansion. Its topics don't need followup, and the questions it didn't answer where unanswered intentionally.

I agree with Cikomir. I you want to use a Middle Earth analogy, it would be like if you wouldn't read LotR because the Hobbit happened before.

I didn't go See the Hobbit because I already Saw LOTR.
And it turned out to be tired pap.

The best sequels don't come out 20 years after the fact by different directors.

[Potatomade]

What I mean, is that Blade Runner is much more self-contained. It doesn't need expansion. Its topics don't need followup, and the questions it didn't answer where unanswered intentionally.

Godfather Part II.

I agree that there are lots of movies that absolutely don't need sequels, and maybe shouldn't have them. I can't imagine what a sequel to Close Encounters of the Third Kind or Fail Safe would be like, and in any case I would be wary of a late sequel to a classic (ex.: Godfather Part III). But being automatically hostile to sequels to good movies is silly.

[Cikomyr]

So...A Sequel. What you described is pretty much 100% a sequel.

...yhea. i mean.. was i trying not to?

And certain things benefit from expansion and certain things don't. Aliens is a fun movie, but if you where a fan of Alien as Alien, then Aliens was a deep betrayal of it as a film. Then it burn't itself out and is a giant pile of garbage.

You are contradicting yourself. Is Aliens a fun movie, or a burned piece of garbage?

And you impose a rather subjective judgement on Aliens. Deciding that it betrays the original. Who are you to make that call? What measures do you take?

You know what is betrayal of the original story? Highlander 2. Men in Black 2. Anything that invalidates the point of the orginal movie.

I didn't go See the Hobbit because I already Saw LOTR.
And it turned out to be tired pap.

Fun fact: Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Hobbit

The best sequels don't come out 20 years after the fact by different directors.

You are right. They are done by the same director, same author and same writer as the original, shortly after the fact.

I think you can agree that The Lost World is WAYYY better than Jurassic World.

[Cikomyr]

Godfather Part II.

I agree that there are lots of movies that absolutely don't need sequels, and maybe shouldn't have them. I can't imagine what a sequel to Close Encounters of the Third Kind or Fail Safe would be like, and in any case I would be wary of a late sequel to a classic (ex.: Godfather Part III). But being automatically hostile to sequels to good movies is silly.

You know, you could make a fantastic dramatic sequel following Close Encounter.

One that actually addresses Spielberg's main point of contention with the movie: nowaday, he thinks the protagonist was wrong to abandon his family.

You could make an entire story around that. Have the man come back and deal with the consequences of his actions. Make a great dramatic story akin to a man who abandonned his own family for Religious Enligtenment, and then must deal with the irresponsibility of his action.

You don't invalidate the original movie. You enhance the world in which it was set.

[comicshorse]

The best sequels don't come out 20 years after the fact by different directors.

No, they come out 17 years after the original by a different director

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343727/?ref_=nv_sr_1

[Potatomade]

You know, you could make a fantastic dramatic sequel following Close Encounter.

One that actually addresses Spielberg's main point of contention with the movie: nowaday, he thinks the protagonist was wrong to abandon his family.

You could make an entire story around that. Have the man come back and deal with the consequences of his actions. Make a great dramatic story akin to a man who abandonned his own family for Religious Enligtenment, and then must deal with the irresponsibility of his action.

You don't invalidate the original movie. You enhance the world in which it was set.

Eh, that'd make me feel kinda bummed watching the original, though. Close Encounters needs to have a childlike wonder about it. That's why Spielberg wanted "When You Wish Upon a Star" to be the theme song so badly. A sequel shouldn't make you feel bad when watching the original, even if the sequel itself is well-done.

[Cikomyr]

No, they come out 17 years after the original by a different director

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1343727/?ref_=nv_sr_1

But that wasnt a sequel...

[Cikomyr]

Eh, that'd make me feel kinda bummed watching the original, though. Close Encounters needs to have a childlike wonder about it. That's why Spielberg wanted "When You Wish Upon a Star" to be the theme song so badly. A sequel shouldn't make you feel bad when watching the original, even if the sequel itself is well-done.

Damn.. maybe..

Still. I cant watch Close Encounter without thinking the guy is an family-abandoning *******

[Potatomade]

To be fair, his wife was extremely unsupportive. And it's kinda hard to fight off psychic compulsion from aliens that probably don't fully understand the human family unit (ex: kidnapping that lady's child).

[Scowling Dragon]

...yhea. i mean.. was i trying not to?

Yes

This is not a continuation/dragging of the original Blade Runner.

Which it exactly is

You are contradicting yourself. Is Aliens a fun movie, or a burned piece of garbage?

Sorry, its to do with the Titles. ALIENS is a fun movie but ALIEN as a SERIES is a burn't out husk,

And you impose a rather subjective judgement on Aliens. Deciding that it betrays the original. Who are you to make that call? What measures do you take?

Because the original was a much more stark horror, and the sequel was a Action Horror film.

Anything that invalidates the point of the orginal movie.

And you impose a rather subjective judgement on Highlander 2. Deciding that it betrays the original. Who are you to make that call? What measures do you take?

Fun fact: Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Hobbit

Made within a relatively short period of time, and wasn't split into 3 parts because he wanted to recoup investment risk.

I think you can agree that The Lost World is WAYYY better than Jurassic World.

I guess, so on a flat technical level but can I simply not bother with them at all?

Sure, by statistical probabilities keep making sequels and you will get lucky. But why this desire?

People complain about sequels but keep demanding them is the truth. Every piece of Garbage that Hollywood makes it makes because people DEMAND IT.

[smuchmuch]

I have to agree Blade runner doesn't need a sequel. it is perfectly good self contained storry on its own.
Ifthey do anage to make a good film put of continuing it, great, tho. But the fact is that experience with 'sequels' such as this has been generaly negative and I fully understand people being warry of it.

You can say 'it's dogmatic' and you should try it before you judge it' but here's the problem, at least in the first couple of monthes:
To see the movie,Ii need to paya the ticket. And even if it happens to disike it, even if a mjority of people who saw it dislike it, they alrady payed, th profit is made. and a enough opening week, even based on curiosity alone will send the message that yes, this is what the kind of movie people wants, or at least what's profitable.
As such, yes it is reasonable not to want to see a movie at all if you feel it'll be bad r t least wait untill first opiions and critics rolls in

(I also fully agree that Aliens (or alien 2 ) if you will was was compellety off comapred to the first movie spirirt by turning a goood horor film into an action, bleh.
But hey if you enjoy it, tht's greayt, no accounting for taste.)

Fun fact: Lord of the Rings is a sequel to The Hobbit

It started that way but clearly sprawled ito something much more that was very much it's own thing.
ou can read Lord of the rig without having read the Hobbit andit perfectly stnd on it's own given how little recuring elements there are.

[DanyBallon]

It started that way but clearly sprawled ito something much more that was very much it's own thing.
ou can read Lord of the rig without having read the Hobbit andit perfectly stnd on it's own given how little recuring elements there are.

It's the whole point about Blade Runner 2049. It's as much a sequel to the original Blade Runner as LotR is a sequel to the Hobbit. Both are stand alone in the same universe, using a few recurring characters.

[paddyfool]

Let's get back to the point: critics are raving about this film (98% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner_2049/).

From what I've read of the reviews while avoiding spoilers as much as possible, it sounds like this wowed them on plot, characterisation, visual spectacle and universe building all at once. I'm definitely interested.

[Cikomyr]

Agreed! Those who dont want to see the movie/rant about sequels, you are invited to start your own thread.

I am awaiting MovieBob's review with impatience. Almost all critics say good thing about the movie, and claim its worthy to be compared to.the original. Maybe not challenge it, but compared with.

[Scowling Dragon]

Agreed! Those who dont want to see the movie/rant about sequels, you are invited to start your own thread.

Why? Well actually I KNOW why. Because most people don't like things they like/ enjoy being viewed critically. Most people can only have something be perfect, or with flaws they can rationalize away, instead of examining the possibility of maybe flaws with the core concepts, or that even aspects they adore, have flaws hard built into them, so acnowledging the product as a whole would also require assesing its flaws.
I don't even Take Reviewer Aggregates very seriously anymore, as they are still pretty colored by hype. Avatar Remains at 80+ Percent and I believe it was even higher before.

I find a reviewer who I think does a good in-depth job, and then stick with them. I ususally never feel comfortable purchasing a product if it only gets lavish praise because that often is tied in with hype.

Edit: Heck Prometheus stands at 72% (With a much higher initial score). Take quality, not quantity.

[Cikomyr]

Why? Well actually I KNOW why.

Except you are not looking at Blade Runner 2049 critically.

Hell, you are not even looking at it.

You are just randomly rambling about sequels in general. You can do that elsewhere, because it is clear you have nothing to contribute to the thread's topic: Blade Runner 2049.

[Scowling Dragon]

Hell, you are not even looking at it.

Well, neither are you because it hasn't been released yet.

The reviewer that I valued made it out as visually stunning but without much depth.
But Talking about what reviewers said is pretty pointless overall.

[Chromascope3D]

I'm not going to see this film because it's a needless sequel to one of my favorite films; I am going to see it because I like Villenueve as a director, and want to support him whether he is doing an original work (as all of his prior films have been), or one of an existing IP (as this one is).

Not to mention the marvelous tie-in anime that honestly sealed the deal for me on seeing this film.

[Hopeless]

So is it any good?

[Cikomyr]

So is it any good?

Well, more people (critics) who saw it so far say yes.

Wr have to wait until Friday :)

[Anonymouswizard]

Edit: Heck Prometheus stands at 72% (With a much higher initial score). Take quality, not quantity.

Eh, take it out of the Alien universe and I enjoyed Prometheus (I also enjoyed Alien: Covenant, but found it to be weaker than it's predecessor). I thin Prometheus would have worked much better as a standalone film with some of the same ideas as the Alien universe, but I don't begrudge a film because it's been put into a canon it shouldn't be in.

(In other words, I think Covenant is the better Alien film, but if Prometheus had been stand alone it would have been the better film.)

For Blade Runner 2049, my parents might drag me along to see it (I need to get a job and move out), otherwise I won't. I didn't find the original Blade Runner that brilliant, enjoyable until the final showdown but not as good as the cyberpunk books I was reading that year (Neuromancer and Snow Crash). Maybe it was just who I was at that time, but I don't like the film enough to seek out a sequel to something that had a satisfying ending.

(On the other hand, if it's the same universe but a rather different film I might be interested, because there's nothing I hate more than a retread*)

* I'm also that weirdo who thinks The Road Warrior was better than Fury Road, but I found FR to just have too much action. I like talky films.

[Cikomyr]

* I'm also that weirdo who thinks The Road Warrior was better than Fury Road, but I found FR to just have too much action. I like talky films.

I lik both. Cant decide which is better.

But i wouldnt define Road Warrior as "talky"