Master_Funk
Member
Oh man, first twin peaks returns after 25 years and was a masterpeice, and now blade runner is returning after 35 years and seems to be masterpeice. 2017 is a good year for revivals.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
First Blade Runner 2049 impressions
- Thread starter Nibel
- Start date
More_Badass
Member
Saw Blade Runner fully for the first time (Final Cut). Had tried to watch a few years ago, couldnt finish it
- It moved faster than I had expected, and the slower parts and dialogue were never boring. I like the plot feels so very small and slice-of-life - just one story that could be happening among hundreds - while the world-building and details make the scope feel so much more grander
- The atmosphere and sense of place is still amazing today. Crowded, dank, claustrophobic decay, rundown and rain-drenched. A lot of cyberpunk depictions get some of those aspects - the rain, the neon, the decay - but Blade Runner has a realism and density that I think other depictions in film and games have failed to capture
- The naturalistic approach of the future and future tech is also very different from many other cyberpunk works Ive seen and read. Most go very heavy on the augmentations and high tech megacorp crushing the people, while Blade Runner feels more realistic in its depiction of the future
- Rutger Hauers Roy was an excellent performance. Charming and cultured yet menacing and haunted. Ford as Deckard was great too, although I do have a soft spot for sci-if noir and characters like him
- I got to agree with the common criticism here: Deckard and Rachels romance felt completely unearned and had none of the emotional weight that the movie thought it had
- It moved faster than I had expected, and the slower parts and dialogue were never boring. I like the plot feels so very small and slice-of-life - just one story that could be happening among hundreds - while the world-building and details make the scope feel so much more grander
- The atmosphere and sense of place is still amazing today. Crowded, dank, claustrophobic decay, rundown and rain-drenched. A lot of cyberpunk depictions get some of those aspects - the rain, the neon, the decay - but Blade Runner has a realism and density that I think other depictions in film and games have failed to capture
- The naturalistic approach of the future and future tech is also very different from many other cyberpunk works Ive seen and read. Most go very heavy on the augmentations and high tech megacorp crushing the people, while Blade Runner feels more realistic in its depiction of the future
- Rutger Hauers Roy was an excellent performance. Charming and cultured yet menacing and haunted. Ford as Deckard was great too, although I do have a soft spot for sci-if noir and characters like him
- I got to agree with the common criticism here: Deckard and Rachels romance felt completely unearned and had none of the emotional weight that the movie thought it had
Corpsepyre
Banned
I.....liked it when I first saw the film in 2007, but upon re-watches and more, I came to absolutely love it. It's now my favourite science fiction film. Watch the making off, by the way. It's called Dangerous Days, and it goes DEEP into the production, release and the aftermath. Brilliant docu.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
This part specifically jumped out at me just recently while watching the Watanabe short. I think right around the point where the two Replicants were in the truck discussing what was about to go down, it sorta slammed into me that it was weird that the world of Blade Runner didn't just stop or shift in any real way because Deckard and Rachel exited the story. I mean, that's really fucking obvious of course, but while you're immersed in their little corner of that world, it seems really expansive and big and important. But the intimate scope of what Deckard is trying to do got brought back into relief by that moment in the short, for me.
I'm curious to see how Villeneuve/Green/Fancher reincorporate Deckard while also widening that scope.
More_Badass
Member
What was added from the theatrical cut versus the Final Cut?
I had only ever seen the director's cut of Aliens, so hearing that the movie usually doesnt have the stuff about Ripley's daughter, pre-infestation Hadley's Hope, the sentry guns, etc just sounds completely weird. I can't imagine the movie without those moments, they feel so crucial to the plot
I wonder if Blade Runner would be the same
-Plasma Reus-
Service guarantees member status
Fiance took me to the cinema. It was a surprise showing of Blade Runner!
She's a keeper.
She's a keeper.
Corpsepyre
Banned
There's a lot of narration, and it's badly done too. There are a number of other differences as well, but I never watched the theatrical fully myself. The narration was killing it for me. The ending was also completely different and pretty Disney-esque, with Deckard and Rachel driving away in daylight. It was shit, honestly. Final Cut is what everyone needs to see, and the only cut as well.
Seriously, check out the docu. It's 3+ hours and there's a lot of good stuff in there.
EDIT: Give this a look as well. It's from the docu
BLADE RUNNER - All our variant futures, From workprint to final cut
And the apparent animosity between Ford and Young definitely didn't help.
Insane Metal
Member
Jesus Christ, definetely. Please don't let her go lol.
Oh, regarding the romance between Rachel and Deckard: am I the only one who thought that scene looked like a rape of some kind? It made me really uncomfortable watching it :|
Fancyarcher
Member
It hasn't been released yet. I'm worried the music is just "sound design", but the one preview clip I saw, seemed fairly Vangelis-lite, so hopefully I'm wrong on that assumption.
More_Badass
Member
Oh definitely, but then they play music that imparts a different tone and Deckard cares about her by the end
To the people mentioning spoilers, is it about
There are no actual spoilers at all there, but I'm just being extra nice to the sensitive people. I read about it some time ago, shit I think it was posted here in another thread. Just want to know if that's it or do I have to be extra careful.
Anyway, what's funny about the narration in the theatrical cut is that there was always intended to be narration in the movie according to the shooting script, they simply never used any of the actual lines written by the actual screenwriters, for god knows what reason.
news of a certain character showing up?
Anyway, what's funny about the narration in the theatrical cut is that there was always intended to be narration in the movie according to the shooting script, they simply never used any of the actual lines written by the actual screenwriters, for god knows what reason.
Chained Prometheus
Member
No, it was something else. But again, we don't know for sure if it was a legit spoiler or not.
Pretty sure this is the common consensus for GAFers.
Yeah, I was wondering about this. I'm interested in watching the sequel, call me shallow but I just hate watching old movies.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
You're shallow.
You can start here just fine if you want.
You can start here just fine if you want.
More_Badass
Member
Atraveller
Banned
Why y'all hating on Arrival?
Discotheque
Banned
I was waiting for impressions from indiewire, awesome to see how much Kohn liked it. If mans is saying stuff that strong about it then God damn this just might be great after all
WB has been killing it with stuff like mad max, Nolan movies and this now .
WB has been killing it with stuff like mad max, Nolan movies and this now .
Insane Metal
Member
Because it's cool hating on great films. It happens to every title.
What did he mean by this?
Member
Im hype. IMAX here I come
Damn I shoulda got moviepass for the fall
Edit:
Arrival sucks.
Damn I shoulda got moviepass for the fall
Edit:
Arrival sucks.
Chained Prometheus
Member
Even if you some inexplicable aversion to old movies, Blade Runner looks like it was made yesterday.
And goddamnit, it's not that old. I'm as old as that movie is.
...
:|
Dude, I love the og Blade Runner, but it definitely doesn't look like "it was made yesterday."
It looks timeless, absolutely. The shots, the effects all hold up. But it does not look like it was made yesterday- partially because of those effects. There's no CGI to be found anywhere in the film. There's a certain grit to the film stock and cameras from those late 70's/80's films that just isn't there in today's films- even the ones shot on film stock.
That's not to say it looks better or worse than modern films for it, but it absolutely has a different visual look to it than films made today.
This is more of an Alcon movie though right, WB is just acting as the domestic distributor.
Technically, this is an independent movie, as far as I understand.
The Final Cut's teal tint actually gives it a highly modern look as far as I can see.
I really only meant that it looks fucking great in all respects, and it isn't in any way dated.Even if you some inexplicable aversion to old movies, Blade Runner looks like it was made yesterday.
And goddamnit, it's not that old. I'm as old as that movie is.
...
:|
*Chef kissing fingers*
Absolute bliss.
More_Badass
Member
He hasnt even seen Die Hard. He has an inexplicable aversion to old movies
It looks cool, I'll try watching it and try to ignore my prejudices.
Jellycrackers
Member
I was hoping someone would say this so I wouldn't have to haha
More_Badass
Member
The city flyover shots looked better than CGI would IMO. I wish we got shots like that today when we get futuristic cities in movies
Chained Prometheus
Member
The Final Cut's teal tint actually gives it a highly modern look as far as I can see.
The teal tint certainly helps give it a wee bit more of a "modern" look, but it's still very clearly made from a different time period than today.
It's just that those wonderful effects and camerawork hold up today astoundingly well.
Heh. Glad to be of service, man.
I don't disagree with you. I prefer the look of practical effects myself! I think it'd be great to see more modern films rely on miniatures and models, rather than use CGI. But that's not the case these days and I doubt we'll ever see CGI fade away from these sorts of films in the future, even if we are seeing a resurgence in use of practical sets and effects too.
Subterranean
Member
What time zone at 6am are the reviews dropping? Please say EST.
Chained Prometheus
Member
9 am EST, I believe.
ShemhazaiX
Member
Not even Star Wars?
Man, it's depressing hearing people call movies from the 80s too old. I was born in the 90s and I consider the 80s to be a golden age of cinema. You had Lethal Weapon, Die Hard, Alien, Terminator... There was just something about the cinematography that just made it feel... Magical.
AgentChris
Member
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/blade-runner-2049-behind-big-bet-by-alcon-a-sequel-1043128This is more of an Alcon movie though right, WB is just acting as the domestic distributor.
Technically, this is an independent movie, as far as I understand.
The Final Cut's teal tint actually gives it a highly modern look as far as I can see.
Interesting, I didn't know Sony was a co-financier, I thought they were just distributing the movie internationally. Guess Alcon covered their bases just in case.
That is an insane budget for this movie though.
AgentChris
Member
Smart and crazy move for Alcon. Still can't believe they greenlit that $100M Point Break remake with a bunch of nobodies.
Also Blade Runner had a budget of $28M which adjusted for inflation is $71M.
macfoshizzle
Member
I swear, I will have a nerdgasm if Rachael shows up somewhere in this movie.
Any word if there will be any fan fare?
Any word if there will be any fan fare?
Fluffhead14
Member
i think the original holds up really well, minus a few of the action scenes (particularly the quick cut in the very first scene that is awkward).
that and the dialogue was inaudible at times while everything else was blowing my speakers out - although maybe that's a me problem.
that and the dialogue was inaudible at times while everything else was blowing my speakers out - although maybe that's a me problem.
ElBoxyBrown
Banned
This still looks very 80s.
Hasphat'sAnts
Member
That shot after "It's Too Bright In Here" is the best thing I've ever seen in a movie.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Jeffolation
Banned
Gunga Din is an old movie. Blade Runner is not, my god people.
Inkvoterad
Member
Yeahh that scene is 100% not comfy. I imagine it was at the time supposed to be some kind of "wahh so passionate" thing that i guess didn't look as rapey in the 80's. Scene totally aged like shit and is honestly super creepy, and considering the movie seems to play it of as consentual and a beautiful scene or whatever i can only assume it was something that kinda didn't look too weird "at the time" for alot of people.
CosmicGroinPull
Member
Some insane praise posted here. Hype rising.
I hope I will really like the movie.
I hope I will really like the movie.
After watching the documentary that was posted earlier in this thread about all the different versions of the OG Blade Runner, from everything I've read, and my own personal experience I would strongly suggest the Final Cut.
Not only is it the most recent version by 15 or so years making use of the newer visual technology, but Ridely Scott's direct involvement with the process to me suggests that it was more in line with what he wanted to do when he was originally making the film. Luckily he didnt go all George Lucas with the original trilogy. The Final Cut mostly fixes some continuity errors while improving the general visual quality.
I've heard the voice over in the theatrical release version is kind of off putting and personally can't imagine it in the film. To me that might take away from the mood a bit.