Blade Runner 2049 Review Thread

nOoblet16 said:
1.90:1 is the liemax aspect ratio I presume? Because those while not 1.43:1, still look a bit boxier than 2.39:1



Final Cut.
Although imo the final cut doesn't really raises the question that Is Deckard a replicant? primarily because a) There's no narration (which was awful btw) and b) The unicorn scenefollowed by Gaff making a unicorn origami which hints that he may know of Deckard's dreams, further hinting that it may be because Deckard is a replicant (This origami is missing from Final Cut)
Click to expand...
No, it’s in the Final Cut. I saw the Final Cut the other day
 
Kenzodielocke said:
https://twitter.com/HIDEO_KOJIMA_EN/status/915582306458279936
Click to expand...

p7CO3e9.gif
 
BronsonLee said:
I haven't looked at reviews too much to avoid spoilers but people are saying Batista is really good in this?

Any reason I have to post this clip I will do it so here's Batista shooting Ja Rule in the head from a terrible DTV movie

Homie came from that to Marvel, Bond, and now this
Click to expand...

Did you see the prequel short film 2048: Nowhere to run? It gives a taste of what his character is like.

Window said:
I get that it's supposed to be praise but that tweet makes little sense.
Click to expand...

Especially the "he didn't create a sequel to Blade Runner 2049", lol
 
Mr. Sam said:
I'm... pretty sure it's not.

9c2V7NE.jpg
Click to expand...

Yeah it's there, I just watched the Final Cut the other day, which is why I'm saying the two different endings, with different implications for the main character, aren't just "tonally" different, they basically change the entire moral of the movie.
 
I think Deckard being or not being a replicant doesnt do much to change the moral of the story. That the audience does not see a distinction between a replicant and human only further reinforces the point being made through Roy's demise, not alter it.
 
Arkeband said:
Yeah it's there, I just watched the Final Cut the other day, which is why I'm saying the two different endings, with different implications for the main character, aren't just "tonally" different, they basically change the entire moral of the movie.
Click to expand...

Yah watched the Final Cut to remind myself what was different from Directors cut and to show the movie to my GF for the first time... I forgot this was the one with the digitally replaced face on the actress stunt-double, slightly adjusted unicorn day-dream sequence, and I'm not sure what else really...

The origami was there and my GF picked up on what it meant immediately. (I was never smart enough to all these decades... I think I had to read it online...)

There is no difference to the ending from the Director's Cut, right?
 
Z3M0G said:
Yah watched the Final Cut to remind myself what was different from Directors cut and to show the movie to my GF for the first time... I forgot this was the one with the digitally replaced face on the actress stunt-double, slightly adjusted unicorn day-dream sequence, and I'm not sure what else really...

The origami was there and my GF picked up on what it meant immediately. (I was never smart enough to all these decades... I think I had to read it online...)

There is no difference to the ending from the Director's Cut, right?
Click to expand...

Final Cut definitively answers what Deckard is. Which changes quite a bit going into 2049 I would assume, since the original PKD and to a lesser extent the more ambiguous versions were robots-becoming-human and humans-losing-humanity. Final Cut undermines that quite a bit.

But then, 2049 has an older Harrison Ford, so how do replicants age - this basically creates a bunch of confusion going into the movie that is or isn't there depending on which versions of the original you've watched.
 
Arkeband said:
Final Cut definitively answers what Deckard is. Which changes quite a bit going into 2049 I would assume, since the original PKD and to a lesser extent the more ambiguous versions were robots-becoming-human and humans-losing-humanity. Final Cut undermines that quite a bit.
Click to expand...
How?
 
Window said:
I think Deckard being or not being a replicant doesnt do much to change the moral of the story. That the audience does not see a distinction between a replicant and human only further reinforces the point being made through Roy's demise, not alter it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, the question isn't "Is Deckard a replicant or not?" but "What difference does it make?"

Z3M0G said:
Yah watched the Final Cut to remind myself what was different from Directors cut and to show the movie to my GF for the first time... I forgot this was the one with the digitally replaced face on the actress stunt-double, slightly adjusted unicorn day-dream sequence, and I'm not sure what else really...

The origami was there and my GF picked up on what it meant immediately. (I was never smart enough to all these decades... I think I had to read it online...)

There is no difference to the ending from the Director's Cut, right?
Click to expand...

The shot of the dove flying after "tears in rain" is altered. In directors cut it's jarring as fuck, the building looks wrong and the sky is blue. Ending is the same.
 
Window said:
How?
Click to expand...

Deckard being a replicant hunting other replicants is different than humans hunting replicants, and him being a replicant significantly changes what his character is and what he can physically do in 2049.

PKD wrote about it (and the original screenwriter agrees)

Philip K. Dick (author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the book the film is based on)- he wrote the original role of Deckard as a human. "The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?"
Click to expand...

Even Harrison Ford believed he was better left human, it was only Ridley Scott that had a raging boner for making a big twist at the end for whatever reason.
 
Today's the day! Double feature in Dolby Theater/Atmos. So excited and ive even stopped myself from reading all spoilers. Fuck yea
 
We're back down to a 94%/8.4. 74/5. Not bad, not bad at all. I would expect lots more reviews today?

Can't wait to see this!

-Plasma Reus- said:
My favourite game director praising my favourite movie director about the sequel to my favourite movie that is now better than my favourite movie.

My life. Is love.
Click to expand...

That's awesome. Hope you enjoy the film man.
 
Lmao, so now I know why me and my teacher got so confused. We were talking about Blade Runner today and he talked about Deckard and Rachel driving into the sunset which left me confused, as I didn't see that. He asked me what the ending was and I told him about the unicorn origami and the elevator, and he was perplexed. Seems like he had seen the Director's Cut only, and I have only seen the Final Cut. So we was talking about the same movie after all.

Btw, if we say Deckard was a replicant, wouldn't they have had to upgrade him to a Nexus 8 some time for him to be alive in 2049?
 
You have very clear examples of humans acting with apathy and replicants with deep human desire throughout the film. That Deckard is a replicant yet is unknowingly capable of developing the same apathetic tendencies of humans only further shows similarities between humans and replicants. The fact that a replicant fell in love with a replicant doesn't make a difference either because neither were aware of this. The only way I can see it be argued otherwise is if it's assumed that replicants are intrinsically more attracted to other replicants than humans. The more essential element of this is that replicants are capable of love at all.


I don't think Dick's, the screen writer's or Ford's original intent matter much.
 
BronsonLee said:
I haven't looked at reviews too much to avoid spoilers but people are saying Batista is really good in this?

Any reason I have to post this clip I will do it so here's Batista shooting Ja Rule in the head from a terrible DTV movie

Homie came from that to Marvel, Bond, and now this
Click to expand...

I've thought Batista was good in everything I've seen him in. IMO he steals the entire movie in SPECTRE despite (basically) never speaking, and he's even good in Riddick.

Pachimari said:
Btw, if we say Deckard was a replicant, wouldn't they have had to upgrade him to a Nexus 8 some time for him to be alive in 2049?
Click to expand...

Aside from the visuals, I'm most interested in seeing how they handle this.
 
I don't really want to get into a discussion of what's canon. I was just saying either interpretation has little thematic difference.
 
nOoblet16 said:
1.90:1 is the liemax aspect ratio I presume? Because those while not 1.43:1, still look a bit boxier than 2.39:1



Final Cut.
Although imo the final cut doesn't really raises the question that Is Deckard a replicant? primarily because a) There's no narration (which was awful btw) and b) The unicorn scene followed by Gaff making a unicorn origami which hints that he may know of Deckard's dreams, further hinting that it may be because Deckard is a replicant (This origami is missing from Final Cut)
Click to expand...

Watched on Tuesday and it is not missing from the Final Cut.
 
Pachimari said:
Btw, if we say Deckard was a replicant, wouldn't they have had to upgrade him to a Nexus 8 some time for him to be alive in 2049?
Click to expand...

No spoilers here as such, but I know some people may have deliberately avoided watching the prequels. Exercise caution before clicking.

They're not field-upgradable, any more than you or I would be. All the older generation androids are declared shoot-on-sight after the blackout, and as far as I'm aware this would still apply to Deckard as conceived by Scott.
 
tonysidaway said:
No spoilers here as such, but I know some people may have deliberately avoided watching the prequels. Exercise caution before clicking.

They're not field-upgradable, any more than you or I would be. All the older generation androids are declared shoot-on-sight after the blackout, and as far as I'm aware this would still apply to Deckard as conceived by Scott.
Click to expand...

But if Deckard was a replicant he would not have been able to live all the way till 2049, since the Nexus 6 androids only have a 4-year lifespan. To me personally, he is human, but I do wonder how they would go about this if he were to be a replicant.
 
Bill R Boggess said:
He was great in that prequel short from last month.
Click to expand...

Having only seen him in the Guardians films I didn't even recognise David Bautista in the 2048 Nowhere to Run short. His entire performance in that brief film is a delight. Part of that is surely direction and writing, but they also cast the right guy if they want a character the audience will care about.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jurassic World: Rebirth Review Thread
2 3
113
911
Ristifer replied
Superman (2025) | Review Thread
Social News  2 3 4
160
214
Reizo Ryuu replied
Snow & White | Review Thread
Community  2
80
6K
GymWolf replied
Kraven the Hunter - Review Thread
News Cringe 
30
3K
AJUMP23 replied
Drew Struzan Appreciation Thread
16
420
drganon replied
Top Bottom