Slashdot Mirror
'Blade Runner 2049' Isn't the Movie Denis Villeneuve Wanted to Make (vice.com)
Readers share a Motherboard article: There are seemingly two inescapable realities for big-budget filmmakers in 2017: you have to use existing intellectual property and you must provide spectacle that can lure massive domestic and foreign audiences to the the theater. It seemed that Denis Villeneuve chose wisely when he selected the IP that he would ride into the mainstream. [...] There is much to admire, but as a whole, Blade Runner 2049 works best as a case for why filmmakers like Villeneuve should be given big budgets to try out new concepts rather than retread what's come before them. Just like Arrival was at its best when we saw the elegance of how the space ship and the aliens within it actually functioned, this version of Blade Runner shines when we get to watch how Villeneuve's dystopia operates. Moments of technical brilliance small and large are at the soul of this film. Whether you're watching the creation of robot memories, the execution of an air strike from an effortless, detached distance, or even something as simple as a stroll through a hall of records, the mechanics of this world are jaw-dropping. Ryan Gosling (K) wisely opts for a muted, brooding performance, allowing the world to steal the show while still illustrating the burden of living in it. Even with all of this technical brilliance on display (the costumes, sound, and special effects are brilliant), the baggage of the original film's mythology weighs down Blade Runner 2049. The most burdensome baggage for Villeneuve to carry, sadly, is the Blade Runner story itself.
quote: The problem "Blade runner 2049" ran into is clear from opening-weekend data. The audience was overwhelmingly male (71 percent) and over the age of 25 (86 percent).
I've never been so spellbound by a 2+ hour movie
I'll second that.
Just everything, from the gorgeous visuals and the awe-inspiring visual design of literally everything in the movie, to the bleak attitude of life in 2049 Los Angeles, the sheer noise (visual and auditory) of the city, and the overarching theme of Man playing God.
I loved it.
Eat the rich.
No. No. No.
It's a good sequel. Better than anyone could have asked for.
This sequel was a slow rolling dramatic tale and I will say.. IT WORKED.
SPOILERS ahead.
I mean it!! Spoilers ahead!!
Seriously.. SPOILERS.
I have to say.. Spoilers cause spaces are removed.
Yes.. SPOILERs..
1. I loved that every Replicant felt that they were the "One"
2. The death scene at the end was just.. perfect. The falling Snow.
3. Everyone wanted a piece of the Child.. and yet... that is the real human condition... everyone wants to use you.
4. In the end, this is a story about a Dad and a daughter. What they represent, does not matter.
I wanted to cheer the ending as it was.. just perfect.
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
I've read most of Phillip K. Dicks' works including "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" I have to say that the original Blade Runner was the very definition of "adaptation" when compared with the book that inspired it. The narrative is different on so many levels. They hardly resemble each other. The way the megacorporations are described in the book is much different than the way they are portrayed in the film. There are a large number of missing characters etc... All that aside, I liked both. They were both interesting to me. So is Blade Runner 2049, too. Just judge it on it's own merits. Don't worry about the problems the producers, directors, writers, and actors had. Screw them. They get enough undeserved attention already and will whine about their jobs just like anyone given the chance. I care about the story and the escapism. Don't bring me down telling me what a hard time the poor director had. Cry me a freakin' river. The guy is rich and probably getting laid right now.
I agree. I went into it not knowing much about it--I avoided press and reviews beforehand. I also didn't expect much. I was quite doubtful that they'd be able to do it right. But, having seen it, I liked everything about it. It was great. It makes some of the other sequels that have come out (Star Trek comes to mind) look like something that you might accidentally step in on the street.
Having read this review, I'm not even really sure what the guy is complaining about. It seems like he's been wanting to write an article about how bad franchises and sequels are, and Blade Runner represented an opportunity to do that. The problem is, Blade Runner is actually a good movie.
Am I missing some subtle connection between the headline and the summary?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I enjoyed the movie overall - amazing visuals, atmosphere, things like that. But it was a bit light on plot. I think the themes could have been explored more enjoyably with a thicker plot. The problem reviewers seem to have with it is the same, that it's too beholden to the both the successes and shortcomings of the original. I'm of the opinion that theres a middle ground between the artsy style of Blade Runner and the more conventional stuff like The Martian, and that's where the sweet spot is.
is reviewer is Millenial or something? It's like he watched a completely different movie. Even goes on to insult Harrison Ford's acting ability - "so committed to phoning it in that the Verizon "Can You Hear Me Now?" guy should fear for his job." :)
If you loved the first movie, you will like this one as well. This movie may not do well because of R rating. They could have easily made PG-13 version, like what we saw in 1990s on regular tv. Regardless, it was worth the 20+ year wait (for me) and hopefully, there will be a third film to wrap things up.
Only negative thing about the movie was how loud the "noise" was - not sure if it's my local theater or if it's designed to make your ears bleed
It's a great film. I don't know why it needs to be deconstructed. Then again, it does occur to me that the audience was largely male and white, so I suppose that would anger the powers that be on the internet. Takedown articles would be written. There will be flame wars. Social justice agitators demand it.
Why do we train dogs to learn commands in English, but we don't try to learn Dog?
I don't know the answer to that, but sometimes it's easier for the "lesser" creature to learn words than for the "superior" organism to learn. And the multi-time isn't a form of life-omniscience, but a form of moving a single consciousness through the life of that consciousness. The future may be unknowable until it's set, or something like that. It wasn't until after he told her what she said that she remembered saying it. Or something like that, it was a plot advancement device, not good science. The deliberate obfuscation of the present and "time travel" was the point. The director wanted us as confused as the character, so makes it deliberately obtuse to try and confuse the audience.
Learn to love Alaska