bladerunner 2049

[syn]

not sure i like i like material like this before the movie itself (which should be able to stand on its own), but on the other hand these are interesting and don't fall into conventional trailer territory. short version, villenueve had several shorts made by his 2nd unit director. 2 of them have been released, apparently one more coming.

first one https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=92&v=Vn-csFKhQCg

second one https://twitter.com/iTunesTrailers/status/908359704639766529/video/1

[Sssith]

I found it really interesting as it helps flesh out the world that the movie takes place in.  I like the tone of the two shorts and makes me hopeful for the actual movie.

Is the third short out?

[syn]

i liked them too. i'm really looking forward to the movie but am extremely nervous that it can't compare to the first one. the first two clips are reassuring. the third clip is set to be released on 9/26. different from the first two: the 3rd is anime, produced by Shinichiro Watanabe of cowboy bebop fame. link for a preview of thing here

[Darkness]

The animatrix was something similar done after the release of the Matrix, which helped flesh out the movie background somewhat. It was a collection of really well done animated shorts. I've not looked at the ones for Bladerunner yet but, I'm hoping they are in a similar vein.

[TheMikrobe]

Looks like I have to make another negative post about modern blockbusters, sorry!

Blade runner (director's cut) is so perfect and the ambiguity of the ending so essential that I have zero interest in this. It might be entertaining but I can't see how it will add anything worth saying. Just like I haven't seen any Terminator since T2 I'm never going to see this.

[Darkness]

Unless they are keeping a very clever surprise under wraps, a look at the cast list suggests the ambiguity over Gaff's statement "its a pity she won't live but, then again who does?" is resolved.

I'm not expecting anything more than an entertaining story out of this although, I think the "profundity" of Bladerunner is somewhat overstated (mostly due to Ridley's Scott's pontificating and navel gazing) and the subject of what it means to be human has been done far better in other movies (1993 Ghost in the Shell) and also in the source material of Dick's original book.

What makes Bladerunner a great film isn't so much the story, as its atmosphere, the performances, dialogue and musical score. Bladerunner 2049 could have a vastly more interesting story than the original which could make it stand as a great film in its own right, because trying to actually compete with what makes the original great is really a hiding to nothing.

[TheMikrobe]

atmosphere, the performances, dialogue and musical score

I agree that these help make it a great film, and that without them it would be trite. It is one of the few films I would describe as "beautiful" and I have watched it as a purely sensory experience. Some of it is a bit heavy-handed, but passable because of the style. But without the story and themes it would be much less memorable.

I'm conflicted on Ridley Scott. I've listened to his director's commentary on three great films, Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator, and one not-so-great film, Robin Hood (which is not terrible, and has some really good and interesting moments), and probably also Kingdom of Heaven although I can't remember that. My conclusion from those three movies was that Ridley Scott doesn't understand what he made. Among the excessive boring comments on the technical details of production or the politics and economics of the business is some interesting stuff about design and cinematography. He is a brilliant visual artist, which is understandable from his background. But anytime he touches on character, narrative, themes, etc., he just seems ignorant of the great art he created - and yet he's done it at least 3 times, and in patches numerous other times.

I will actually read reviews and spoilers and may decide to watch it if I get a chance, although that definitely won't be in the cinema. I'm not the kind of person to shout "they ruined it!" and reject something completely, and I can take a sequel on its own merits.

[Darkness]

I'm conflicted on Ridley Scott. I've listened to his director's commentary on three great films, Alien, Blade Runner and Gladiator, and one not-so-great film, Robin Hood (which is not terrible, and has some really good and interesting moments), and probably also Kingdom of Heaven although I can't remember that. My conclusion from those three movies was that Ridley Scott doesn't understand what he made. Among the excessive boring comments on the technical details of production or the politics and economics of the business is some interesting stuff about design and cinematography. He is a brilliant visual artist, which is understandable from his background. But anytime he touches on character, narrative, themes, etc., he just seems ignorant of the great art he created - and yet he's done it at least 3 times, and in patches numerous other times.

I think the following review of Prometheus really captures how I think of Ridley's inanity when it comes to talking about his movies.

http://www.digitaldigging.net/prometheus-an-archaeological-perspective/

[Reigns]

I'm curious about who will howl about this...
I preferred the original theatrical version to the director's cut.  Yes, with the voice over.
Granted, I don't actually CARE if you agree...
But I'm curious.  :p

[Sssith]

I still haven't watched the director's cut.  I probably should at some point.  Is there another version also?

I have only watched the original.

[Melchior]

How many versions of the original are there? Think I have only seen the Final Directors Cut or some such.

Pretty excited for the new one though.

[Sssith]

More good news:
https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/blade-runner-2049-buzz-critics-are-raving-about-the-long-awaited-sequel/

[Sssith]

First of all I finally got around to watching Blade Runner: The Final Cut.  I very much enjoyed it but, other than the lack of narration, I did not find it to be that different.  Though the lack of narration completely changes the tone of the movie.  It is tough for me to say whether it is better or worse since I can hear the narration playing in my head anyway.  It seemed to make the movie move more slowly and be a lot more subtle.  Not sure if someone new to the movie would feel lost or not watching it.

Then I got to watch the new version of the movie.  Without giving away details I would say that I was somewhat surprised by the direction of the movie.  There was a subtle religious overtone to the movie that was unexpected.  Many of the same themes were explored.  While the pacing was deliberately slow I thought the movie moved well enough for being so long.  The story built to a steady crescendo, and by the end of movie you could start to really see the bigger picture of this Blade Runner universe.

Overall I really enjoyed it and thought it was a worthy successor to the original.  The original was much more visceral, while the new one took more time to develop it themes.  Huge thumbs ups from me.

[TheMikrobe]

Reviews are good, and also have seemed to suggest that my reservations aren't valid. I'm considering going to see it this weekend.

There was a subtle religious overtone to the movie that was unexpected.

Unexpected after the explicitness of Roy Batty, a superior being, descending from heaven, doubting himself ("Can the maker repair what he makes?"), pushing a nail through his hand, saving Deckard, then dieing and releasing an ascending dove? At least he doesn't die with his arms spread out or have JC as his initials...

you could start to really see the bigger picture of this Bladder Runner universe

I have heard that the run-time of this movie is quite long, I'd better be prepared

[Sssith]

lol...at my epic misspelling.

Funny I didn't pick up on the first movie's religious over tones.  But there is a certain dying for your sins vibe now that you point it out.