Blade Runner 2049

  On 10/6/2017 at 6:48 PM, zaphod said:

these are most autistic complaints i've ever seen

is that a bad thing?

fuck it, if Eugenie is gonna complain about the waveforms of certain soundtrack elements then its worth taking a punt on this, even if it turns out to be one big comedown

pirating films is one thing, dropping a few quid on an entrance fee & smuggling in drinks, a munch & vape loaded with some fine shrubbery should distract from the arse numbing & balance the piracy books with at least one minor god of cheating

even if its shit, and just about every sequel/prequel film based on a successful initial production rarely matches said original (with a few exceptions), the visual world depicted in certain stills seems worth a large screen blast & the green will help if it is toss

  On 10/6/2017 at 4:21 PM, eugene said:

pretty decent review, not having exactly the same sort of major gripe i did, but very perceptive of the stupidities of the script:

 

i also really liked that baseline inspection scene she pointed at that i forgot to mention. it was very technical and original with this fast barrage of dictated sentences and the quick and repetitive responses of the protagonist, it felt very lived in and organic to the world, which helped show what the replicants are undergoing in this world without actually blatantly explaining it to the viewers. probably one of the few inspired scenes in the film.

This 'review' is pretty shit imo. The 'reviewer' doesn't even understand pretty basic things laid out obviously in the film. And has kinda shit taste. Stopped halfway through. Spoilers below.

you know it's a good review when the reviewer requires almost half an hour to present her opinion on a movie.

yeah because those half in a bag reviews are all five minutes long

Mark Kermode's interview is good. I'll see it next week, I guess.

He's wrong about the soundtrack though. It's shite. 

I...i think i loved it and want to see it again in a few days. All of the foggy neon mystery of the world is expanded on, without compromising anything. 

The slow pace was excellent, allowing you to soak everything up. The weak link was maybe the music? Either way, it did the trick during crucial moments.

Mark Kermode has good insights but goddamn, the absolute certainty and self-satisfaction of his opinions always drives me up the wall.

Wife's gone this weekend I think it's a perfect night to nerd out and go watch this by myself.

Although I could never get into the original.

  On 10/6/2017 at 9:39 PM, fumi said:

 

Mark Kermode's interview is good. I'll see it next week, I guess.

 

He's wrong about the soundtrack though. It's shite. 

You haven't seen the movie.

Soundtrack isn't great, but it works in general WHEN WATCHING THE MOVIE...which, ya know, is the point of a soundtrack. The music has moments of good though it has some bits that are definitely weak/rushed.. Nothing was ever going to live up to the original, of course.

That interview/review sums it up well though. If anyone was thinking meh maybe don't see it, go to about 11:00 and listen to his summation and ultimate reaction watching it, I'd agree with most everything he said. It's a pretty damned good film.

  On 10/6/2017 at 11:00 PM, auxien said:

 

  On 10/6/2017 at 9:39 PM, fumi said:

 

Mark Kermode's interview is good. I'll see it next week, I guess.

 

He's wrong about the soundtrack though. It's shite. 

You haven't seen the movie.

 

Soundtrack isn't great, but it works in general WHEN WATCHING THE MOVIE...which, ya know, is the point of a soundtrack. The music has moments of good though it has some bits that are definitely weak/rushed.. Nothing was ever going to live up to the original, of course.

 

That interview/review sums it up well though. If anyone was thinking meh maybe don't see it, go to about 11:00 and listen to his summation and ultimate reaction watching it, I'd agree with most everything he said. It's a pretty damned good film.

 

I'm sure it works fine within the confines of the movie. That's the least it should be doing.

As a stand-alone album that you'll still want to listen to years from now.. I really doubt it. 

the women were the best part of this. The bad girl was actually convincing and a 2049 where I can have Ana de Armas do sex talk to me is a future worth fighting for. Gosling gonna gosling. (Tremble and stare) but wow. Jared fuckig Leto. the worlds best con artist? Complete fucking trash. His acting chops consists of not moving his neck, starting some POS dialog about angels by looking up at the sky (wow,deep) and then slowly sweeping his head down. He *literally* did it three times in one scene. Audible lol produced from me in a theater of completely silent Finns.

It sucked. Stupid film. Plot made no sense at all, there was absolutely no reason for any drama or tension. Script needed major rewrites. Edward JO fan service was pathetic. Deakins can do no wrong with some nice shots and color but honestly most of the actual production design was done in 1982. Nothing that novel except the kiss scene which was actually v cool

itt people are truly struggling to understand synths and the plot of blade runner 2049. hell yeah

it's what we've been reduced to

Ultimate respect to the technicals.

But this was absent flesh, blood, pulse.

Luv was the only good character in this.

The interrogation/baseline scenes were some of the most futuristic and alienating I have ever seen. Whatever they were making him recite was incredible. I think I read somewhere that it was from Nabokov's Pale Fire?

this was good

probably the best new vegas dlc

also, how and why exactly did the property of a film being "thought provoking" become a mark of its quality and is something that is praiseworthy by default? it's easy to come up with thought provoking concepts, for example: what if replicants and a.i. sexbots could have children in some form? what would that do to their identity and self understanding? how would humans deal with it? pretty wild idea that can get the mind racing, right? but just throwing similar stuff into the film while constantly exaggerating its importance (not to mention that they didn't even introduce anything new, and just ripped stuff off from other places) without developing it or working it somehow doesn't cut it, it's a cheap way to pretend to be clever and significant. schindler's "a.i." and jonze's "her", for example, did some actual work with the ideas that this film only superficially presented.

Will probably go see this on Monday early afternoon. I prefer big screen experiences in near-empty theatres.

  On 10/7/2017 at 4:50 PM, eugene said:

also, how and why exactly did the property of a film being "thought provoking" become a mark of its quality and is something that is praiseworthy by default? it's easy to come up with thought provoking concepts, for example: what if replicants and a.i. sexbots could have children in some form? what would that do to their identity and self understanding? how would humans deal with it? pretty wild idea that can get the mind racing, right? but just throwing similar stuff into the film while constantly exaggerating its importance (not to mention that they didn't even introduce anything new, and just ripped stuff off from other places) without developing it or working it somehow doesn't cut it, it's a cheap way to pretend to be clever and significant. schindler's "a.i." and jonze's "her", for example, did some actual work with the ideas that this film only superficially presented.

movies aren't thought provoking, but this has nothing to do with the movie. just because critics and dumb nerds try to sell a movie on these kinds of things doesn't mean the movie is somehow at fault. i thought this was perfectly fine in terms of ideas. there were enough surreal visuals in it to hold my attention. for a big budget "blockbuster" movie i was very impressed. i don't know how you think movies are made but the fact that this was as good as it was is kind of miraculous. yes, the script was a mess, although i think gosling had a nice arc and served as a kind of sympathetic roy batty character, ultimately used for the purpose of something beyond himself. the score was overpowering and dumb but obviously something happened in production and zimmer was called in and did his thing. i'm not a fan but i'm not convinced a vangelis score would have somehow improved the movie. it's aesthetic was bleak and overwhelming. it was taking the blade runner world of 2019 to its logical conclusion and i found that exciting. it's one of the few sequels i've seen that actually built on the original. every criticism you guys have for this can be leveled at the original movie. sometimes movies just need to be gorgeous to look at and present an enveloping world to fall into and this did that well. i don't really know what people expected here. i'm surprised how good it was.

  On 10/7/2017 at 4:50 PM, eugene said:

also, how and why exactly did the property of a film being "thought provoking" become a mark of its quality and is something that is praiseworthy by default? it's easy to come up with thought provoking concepts, for example: what if replicants and a.i. sexbots could have children in some form? what would that do to their identity and self understanding? how would humans deal with it? pretty wild idea that can get the mind racing, right? but just throwing similar stuff into the film while constantly exaggerating its importance (not to mention that they didn't even introduce anything new, and just ripped stuff off from other places) without developing it or working it somehow doesn't cut it, it's a cheap way to pretend to be clever and significant. schindler's "a.i." and jonze's "her", for example, did some actual work with the ideas that this film only superficially presented.

on the other hand, why should we demand that this particular movie works out new, significant conceptualizations about its underlying premise? i fail to see why a film about a replicant blade runner’s journey has to also be a profound meditation on self and humanity. it seems perfectly fine that the premise serves to propel the film in a dramatic way without also being adequate fodder for theoretical research.

well it better be something more than just marinading in its own atmosphere and namedropping some interesting ideas.i agree with zaphod that K's story was decent (that scene towards the end with the huge joi ad-hologram was quite poignant) but it was also very undercooked and not given enough attention with all the other stuff the film was grasping for and distracted with. in fact it could have been better as a standalone story in that blade runner universe rather than its more direct continuation that comes with a lot of obligations.

i think your criticisms of the script are warranted. it was weak and undercooked and needed multiple revisions and tightening. i don't think that was enough to bring the movie down and particular scenes/visuals still stick with me (the glitch, the three way, the joi scene near the end, most of the aerial shots of los angeles). it's also so rare to see anything resembling cyberpunk outside of anime and when it's done well, which i think it was here, i'm going to be open to it. i think my biggest gripe is still the score, which was pretty much garbage and actually painful in the imax theater i saw it in. in fact most of the soundtrack was painfully loud. there's a point where luv shouts at robin wright's character that was so shrill and loud that i actually tensed up in my seat. it was bizarre and i don't know if it's an imax thing but every hans zimmer scored movie i've seen has been uncomfortable to watch in imax. i also thought most of the performances and characterizations were pretty strong. ford was surprisingly good for what he was. the complaints about jared leto are ridiculous. he's only in the movie for maybe six total minutes of screen time. he's a terrible actor but who cares. although i would have loved david bowie in that role, which was the original choice before he died. i was pleasantly surprised by gosling, hoeks, de armas. mackenzie davis was a nice echo of the pris character from the original. overall i was happy with how far they took the overall visual aesthetic and world of the film. it pushed the world of the original into the kind of pornographic hellscape that it would logically become and i admired that bleakness in a mainstream movie. for people to complain about this but then not level those same complaints against marvel or dc trash is just bizarre to me. 

the baseline scenes were absolutely the best thing in the movie though, i agree with eugene on that. in a perfect world the entire film would have followed k through a series of extremely alienating sequences like that and just allowed the world to build around it without much concern for narrative.