Blade Runner 2!?


Yeah, I got that, I was asking about models from the first film hanging around in the sequel.


Well, the only one that would need to, I think, is Deckard, given the timing.


Yeah, I thought it was basically implied that Deckard and Rachel (among others, perhaps) were the first wave of Nexus 8 reps.


Spolers follow:

Implied, but they leave open the possibility Deckard isn’t even a Replicant, and Rachel could have lived until 2021 as a 6.


Yeah, they phrase everything relating to him very carefully.


Absolutely agreed. and even if he is a replicant, even he doesn’t necessarily know it .


Saw it, loved it. It’s a better movie than the first, keeps the best parts of Blade Runner, and improves greatly where that wasn’t as good (plot, character arc for protag).

Most inovative sex scene I can recall off the top of my head.

I’ll go see it again for sure.
Probably the best movie I’ve seen this year.


Unfortunately, it appears the opening weekend box office for Blade Runner 2049 is not meeting expectations. $50.2 million global box office (which is decent) but only $33.8 million coming from the domestic ticket sales. The studio had said they wanted at least $50 million domestic. The movie cost about $150 million to make.

The long running time and weak marketing in smaller cities are being cited as factors. I’d also go with the fact that Blade Runner is one of those films that’s beloved by nerds, but general audiences couldn’t really care less about.

“We did well in the major and high-profile markets. Alcon and Denis made an amazing movie. The audience for it was narrower than we anticipated.”

The movie could go on to have a longer tail at the box office, but it’s likely it will not make much of a profit for Warner Bros. or Sony.


Related only to the first movie, if deckard isn’t a replicant, then how do you explain the origami unicorn?


Saw it today. Wife hated it, but she’s only seen the original like once. Me, I’ve seen Blade Runner many, many times, and used it in class as well. That being said, yeah, if you don’t really know the original backwards and forwards, I can see how this one would lose you.

For me, I was…underwhelmed. It held my interest, but then, I like slow-paced movies generally. It was more entertaining than, say, Dunkiirk, at least. The Vanity Fair review nails it for me though. While stylish and good looking overall, to me the movie has no soul. It’s too much science, not enough fiction, in that the original was 80% noir and about 20$ Sci-Fi, and this one is the opposite. Too many SkyNet-ish Terminator style post-apocalyptic vibes for my tastes, not enough emotion/human grounded dystopia.

Gosling is dreadful. Unless, of course, as I jokingly alluded to upthread, he’s supposed to be wooden, because android. In that case, he’s a perfect robot. Ford is good, as usual (the best line in the movie is when K asks if the dog is real and Deckard says “I don’t know, ask him.”) The killer replicant lady is good. The evil cyborg-dude successor to Tyrell, not so much.

I dunno if I’d see it again. Probably. The special effects seemed out of place, no matter how solid they were. The flying cars looked too Michael Bay-ish and lacked the sort of rusting honesty of the cop cars in the original. The one “reveal” that was sort of interesting was, well, sort of interesting, nearly ruined by Gosling’s total lack of ability to show emotion. The climactic action sequence was, well, pretty stock, and the ending, like a lot of the allusions in the movie (to 2001, Planet of the Apes, etc.) was obvious and while it “worked,” it wasn’t profound, nothing like (admittedly a high bar) Batty’s death scene.

Anyhow, I’m glad they made it, and it sure seems like it’s setting up for a third movie. I got my money’s worth, but then again, I never expected anything much.


Of course there’s room for another movie if the stars and budgets ever align (seems unlikely), but assuming this movie was intentionally “setting up” a sequel reminds me of K believing he’s the child. That’s not his story, and while the world may be building toward a replicant revolution, this doesn’t need to be that story either.

I will be disappointed if the performance of this film hurts Villeneuve’s career (though I’m optimistic that he’ll be okay—no longer being given enormous budget franchise sequels would hardly dampen my enthusiasm for his work); I will not feel disappointment if this is it for the Blade Runner franchise. It’s a magnificent sequel that I never could’ve expected and I wouldn’t expect again.


Eh, I hear you,but I think you invest this movie with more gravitas and intentionality than it deserves. To me, it reeks of setting up a sequel, even if only to lay the groundwork just in case. The whole thing strikes me as competent but uninspired overall. YMMV.


No chance for a sequel then. :(

The film’s disappointing opening doesn’t bode well for the studio. Alcon’s Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove are the producers responsible for introducing Denis Villeneuve to Hollywood (they produced Prisoners), and gambled everything on 2049.Even if it doesn’t catch on, hopefully the filmmaker won’t lose creative freedom on future projects. Maybe they’ll position the film as an awards vehicle, and try to extend it’s life by attempting to pick up some nominations?

They admit that Alcon’s future depends on Blade Runner 2049, the sequel to Ridley Scott’s sci-fi epic that hits theaters Oct. 6. “This is a chips-in-the-center-of-the-table exercise,” says Kosove.


The origami unicorn only has relevance in one of the two versions of the original movie, and the footage that gave it significance was added post/facto and not originally shot (or maybe even planned). In the other version, the origami unicorn carries no more info than Adama letting Deckard and Rachel go.

This movie treats those two versions as viable alternatives.

I mean, I do prefer the Director’s/final cut of the movie myself, but it’s not clear any of those is more “official” than the other versions.


Looks like 2049 performed decently overseas, but it’ll still need long legs if they hope to cover that massive budget.

Internationally, Blade Runner met overseas expectations, debuting with an estimated $50.2 million from 63 markets, 61% of its international footprint, capturing the #1 spot in 45 of those markets. The film’s opening in the UK led the way with an estimated $8 million, on par with Interstellar and ~15% ahead of Mad Max: Fury Road. In Australia the film brought in an estimated $3.6 million, topping both Interstellar (9%) and Gravity (28%) and in Russia it finished with an estimated $4.9 million, on par with Mad Max: Fury Road. Additional openings include France ($3.6M), Germany ($3.3M), Spain ($2.6M), Italy ($2.5M), Brazil ($1.8M) and Mexico ($1.6M).

Blade Runner will open in South Korea next week followed by an October 27 opening in Japan and a November 10 opening in China.


I hadn’t ever seen anything that it wasn’t originally planned or shot, although I know it wasn’t in the original theatrical cut… but the original theatrical cut was total garbage, too.

Gaff’s line at the end is also kind of weird, “You’ve done a man’s job, sir!”

Actually, apparently an interview with Scott indicated that they did originally plan the unicorn scene, and they did shoot it originally, but it was only cut from the theatrical release by producers for being “too artsy”.


Mad Max: Fury Road had a similar budget, and it did eventually go on to make a bit of profit, but it also had very strong word-of-mouth and a crisp 2 hour running time. Blade Runner 2049 is almost a full hour longer (less showings on screens) and while critics seem to like it, the movie’s been pretty divisive outside of Blade Runner nerds.

I doubt it will substantially damage Villeneuve’s career, but this makes his Dune trilogy a much tougher sell. If this movie doesn’t hit its budget it will be very bad for Alcon.


Oh, I agree, nut the new movie doesn’t position itself on this issue, allowing for people who prefer the original cut to have a story that makes sense with their interpretation.


For me, about the reverse. My GF has seen the original a ton of times. I’ve seen it exactly twice, but watched it with her again last weekend in prep for seeing this one.

My summary was that it was a very much a play on the same premise as the first movie, but with obvious follow on of the same plot. It was a continuation in every sense, the scenery, the atmospheric soundtrack, the colorization and style of camera shots, etc. Where it amped up things is where I think they went too far. The increase of technology was a little jarring as a continuation of the first film. As you mentioned, the action scenes were as well, with a little too much green screen special effects and Matrix-style fighting. I actually enjoy when they bring more of the characters and story arcs back in to science fiction, and I felt this did, but still threw crumbs out to the action salivating crowd.The cinematography though, holy shit this was amazing to see on a huge screen. If it doesn’t win awards for cinematography I will be very surprised.

I enjoyed the characters, though as you mentioned, Gosling as the choice for the lead seemed off, but I felt like he played it that way to highlight he was NOT who he thought he would be. He was missing a soul.

My GF didn’t like it and felt they ruined the first movie a bit. She summarized why by saying she hated nearly every character except Deckhard. She was especially saddened that an equivalent to Roy Batty wasn’t in this. She also didn’t like the soundtrack in this movie, and the one to the first movie is something she holds up as her favorite from a film, ever.

This was her take, in a nutshell.


One great thing about art is that we can all look at it differently, and we can all learn something from others’ takes on stuff. I agree the cinematography is good here, but whether it matches the visual impact of the first is an open question for me. Generally, no, but I’m not sure if that’s because after 35 years of watching the original even an excellent effort like 2049 can’t push my buttons as well.

I do wonder what happened to the dog though.