“Hey, Harry. How do you make those, uh, those… whaddya call 'em?”
“Expressions?”
“Yeah, expressions! How d’ya do that?”
“It’s called acting.”
“Acting?”
“Yeah, you pretend you’re a different character than yourself.”
“And you make faces like you’re that other person?”
“Yup.”
“Cool. Gonna hafta try that. Thanks. Do we just keep running?”
“Yup. And try to look concerned. Like you’re being chased.”
“How?”
“Never mind. Just run.”
I did my part. Bought two tickets because I accidentally bought one for the wrong night.
It’s pretty amazing on an IMAX screen. I’ll see it again at home, but I’ll probably never see it that way again
IMAX is shit here.
BR1 is on syfy right now.
Hopefully international tickets will offset this somewhat. Theater was packed here.
I liked it a lot. I was surprised by how much of a direct sequel it was. It’s obviously not to the level of the first film (which I consider flawless and is one of the movies I keep rewatching) but it’s a really impressive feat they managed to do a sequel while keeping it a good film and not dirtying the original.
My theater was packed, too. I think the film was produced as an international co-production, and benefited from numerous tax rebates and incentives for using local faculties and crew, so hopefully it won’t be a disaster.
I imagine the enormous budget figure that’s floating around ($150 million) doesn’t include the marketing, so it’ll need to perform really well internationally if it doesn’t find a domestic audience. It was pretty bold to make a direct sequel to a 35 year old cult film, and despite the odds, it’s a strong work. I’m very happy this was made.
That article projects domestic $35 million. Mad Max had domestic $45 million and the same estimated budget of $150 million and became a success based on international sales.
I think the brand (it’s weird to talk of Blade Runner as a brand) probably has more legs internationally than in the US. I’m curious about the final international numbers. I hope it makes enough.
I think Fury Road benefited from stronger reviews and a shorter running time. Even though it was an unusual blockbuster, it was an incredible action spectacle that just flew by, and probably satisfied fans of both auteur filmmaking and the genre. I fear that only the former will be fully on board with 2049, as one of the pleasures of the film is that it really takes the time to let the viewer to immerse themselves in the world, but the story isn’t exactly immediately obvious or clear in the way that Dunkirk or Fury Road is, so I can understand why audiences would be really put off by it. There are scenes in this movie that would barely register any impact for people who hadn’t seen the original.
Regardless, I’m going to see it again tomorrow! If it doesn’t perform well, I hope it doesn’t kill Villeneuve’s Dune film.
This is, in fact, true to the book. There were quite a few parts, actually, that were truer to the book than either the sequel was to the original or the original was to the book. Not that it came across as particularly Dickian.
I’ve read the book many years ago, but I don’t specifically remember the world state other than it being a lot different from what we see in Blade Runner.
Simply going off Blade Runner though 2049 felt like a significant change although they do try to explain this with the offhand comment about the blackout event. I suppose now it feels more aligned with the book…
So wrong. If there is one movie this year that deserves the huge screen, it is this one. It is mesmerizing.
The opening crawl also mentions the collapse of the world’s ecosystems, and that combating that problem is how Niander Wallace made his name.
The ecosystem collapse had to be before the original movie. Otherwise the owl makes no sense. It’s just that the original movie never left the city.
Saw 2049 last night after watching The Final Cut the night before. Thoroughly enjoyed 2049, and while it’s impossible to have the visual impact that the original had on film making, the newer one is better. The acting, writing, and story of the first aren’t great across the board but dammit the visuals were groundbreaking and genre defining. I don’t know if the new one needed to be almost three hours, but I personally didn’t mind the deliberate pace.
I think the economist review linked above misses a few things. Like a typical human, the reviewer only considered what having a child would mean on how humans view replicants. Maybe humans would see them differently when they see they can reproduce, but a big part of it is how that would change the replicants view of themselves. Not a shocking revelation, I know, but it seemed of how the reviewer hand waved that as a plot hole. And to let movies that borrow from the original blade runner and then criticize 2049, which I thought stayed true to the ideas of the first, as borrowing from the other movies listed felt weird.
Who knows? Main thing is I really enjoyed it. My wife, who doesn’t care much for the first, also really enjoyed this one which surprised me a little bit and surprised her a lot more.
Did they ever explain how he replicants got rid of the expiration date? I thought they all had 3-4 ye life spans but it seemed like some of the models from the old movie are still alive?
That’s addressed in the opening text. Also in the prequel shorts.
Different models, basically. It’s a bit of a lame retcon.
I think I might have missed something…
Which models are from the previous movie?? They do not confirm not deny Deckard’s status as replicant or human… Basically taking both endings (she’s special and will live longer /both are replicants that need to make good use of their time) as viable.
The most advanced models in the original (eg Roy) were 6s. The crawl in 2049 said 8s were the last generation before the ban and had indefinite lifespan.
I didn’t see them posted in the thread, but there are two other short films (along with the anime) that were released as background material for the film.
(They’re both deeply inessential, but the second is much more interesting than the first)