Blade Runner 2049.

[andyoxon]

Perhaps an understatement to say it's 'hotly anticipated', apparently early reviews are good too...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/films/2017/09/27/blade-runner-2049-first-reactions-critics-call-film-sci-fi-masterpiece/

Looks like we'll be down to the big screen fairly early on come 5th Oct...   

[Wascally Weasel]

I don’t know.  I’m reasonably pleased with the choices of people chosen to put together but initial reviews on either big films or games often tend to be glowingly positive and you don’t really get the truly balanced reviews until weeks after it’s out.

It could be great, it could be average, it could be terrible.  I think it will at least be different from Blade Runner, or at least not just a remake/reboot.  It not being as bad as either Prometheus or Alien Covenant would be nice.

[ian]

It can't be as bad as that.

I have to confess I was always a bit 'meh' over Blade Runner. I mean, it was OK, nicely filmed but a bit ponderous in places.

I has some tickets anyway. Can you believe my dear wife has never seen Blade Runner? It's true. It'd better not have robots in it, she says. I didn't lie. They're replicants.

[Wascally Weasel]

It can't be as bad as that.

I have to confess I was always a bit 'meh' over Blade Runner. I mean, it was OK, nicely filmed but a bit ponderous in places.
replicants[/i].

Next you'll be saying that Babylon5 is a big pile of shit...

[mattc]

Perhaps an understatement to say it's 'hotly anticipated',

.. by some, perhaps.

'Viewed with wariness' by most, I suspect.

I can't remember the last 'hotly anticipated' sf/fantasy stylee film that actually delivered. Probably Terminator2?

It's like an inverse relationship - nearly all the good stuff has snuck up on me; like The Matrix, which I knew sod-all about. (And un- like the sequels, which were a dreadful disappointment ... ). Star Trek IV !

I blame the geeks - they are just way too easily excited.

[andyoxon]

I ignored Interstellar for ages for some reason, great film - wish I'd seen it at the cinema.  If BR2049 was going to be bad, I reckon it'd probably already be apparent from early reviews...

[redshift]

The (spoiler free) first reaction from ubergeek Adam Savage seems to be positive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ9F3U3Pax8

[ian]

It can't be as bad as that.

I have to confess I was always a bit 'meh' over Blade Runner. I mean, it was OK, nicely filmed but a bit ponderous in places.
replicants[/i].

Next you'll be saying that Babylon5 is a big pile of shit...

I've not watched 1 through 4 yet.

[Gattopardo]

No.

Just no.

What is your favourite version of blade runner?

[vorsprung]

I like a bit of Dick

Let's be clear, the original Blade Runner was visually and culturally a ground breaker.  To top it any remake would have to shit bricks.  And let's face it, most remakes are a pale shadow

[andyoxon]

I've not see BR for many years - may watch again over next few days.  I'm avoiding any BR2049 trailers.   

[ElyDave]

I read the book recently.  Some distinct artistic license in the film, but not in a bad way at all.

Waitress in the restaurant (dining alone in Aberdeen again) asked me what I was reading

"the book that Bladerunner is based on"

"what's bladerunner?"

[Exit Stage Left]

I like a bit of Dick

Let's be clear, the original Blade Runner was visually and culturally a ground breaker.  To top it any remake would have to shit bricks.  And let's face it, most remakes are a pale shadow

I struggle to see how it's much of an advance on Planet of the Apes, Omega Man, or Soylent Green. Its principal feature is that it didn't star Charlton Heston.

[mattc]

I struggle to see how it's much of an advance on

Your loss my friend!

[hillbilly]

Early reviews seem to focus on the kinds of things that win the minor oscars (costume, sound, cinematorgraphy etc).  And they are glowingly positive.  Likewise the acting is good, even Han Solo (I read he doesn't just turn up for this one, unlike certain other franchises...).  But some are suggesting the story is good on concept but that it doesn't deliver consistently. 

Which pretty much reads like the original BladeRunner, so I'm guessing that if you like the original you'll like 2049.  If you didn't, then the chances are this will leave you cold.

FWIW, I'm really looking forward to it and hope to see it on as large a screen as possible (IMax probably).

[hillbilly]

I like a bit of Dick

Let's be clear, the original Blade Runner was visually and culturally a ground breaker.  To top it any remake would have to shit bricks.  And let's face it, most remakes are a pale shadow

Not sure if this is what you're implying, but I'll just pipe up and note that it's not a remake.  It's a proper sequel, co-written by the screenwriter of Blade Runner 2019.

Fans should check out the three mini prequels that Warner released to Youtube etc (2 are around 5 minutes, the anime one is more like 15).  Particularly the first two live action ones, as they give an idea of the "tone" and show some of the actors involved in the main feature.

[Mr Larrington]

It can't be as bad as that.

I have to confess I was always a bit 'meh' over Blade Runner. I mean, it was OK, nicely filmed but a bit ponderous in places.
replicants[/i].

Next you'll be saying that Babylon5 is a big pile of shit...

Get out!!1!

[citoyen]

I’ve seen the original Blade Runner but never quite understood the hype. I couldn’t possibly tell you which is my favourite version. Ought to watch it again really.

But I’ve just read Peter Bradshaw’s review of 2049 and now I very much want to see it. He’s not generally given to getting over-excited so for him to be so madly enthusiastic about a film suggests it might be worth seeing.

[andyoxon]

He does seem rather keen...   

... in a film whose sheer scale leaves you hyperventilating

With this visually staggering film [...]. It just has to be experienced on the biggest screen possible. Blade Runner 2049 is a narcotic spectacle of eerie and pitiless vastness, by turns satirical, tragic and romantic.
...
The 2017 follow-up simply couldn’t be any more of a triumph: a stunning enlargement and improvement.

[mattc]

He's a very quotable writer:

a stunning enlargement

[Exit Stage Left]

I struggle to see how it's much of an advance on

Your loss my friend!

I saw Blade Runner at the ABC Preston, in its first week on general release. The cinema was nearly empty, so the chatter of the teenagers, who thought a film with Harrison Ford in it might have echoes of Star Wars, resounded around the walls. As a film for general viewing, the numerous longeurs, and near darkness on the screen, failed to engage the audience.

It's taken 35 years for a sequel to emerge. Meanwhile, there's been endless tinkering with the edit, as the device of narration was always bit of a cop-out.

It's similar to Apocalypse Now, in that it's been mined for its successful vignettes, and people have forgotten about the sheer boredom of watching it all the way through. At least Harrison Ford's career was saved by 'Raiders of the Lost Ark'.

[citoyen]

the device of narration was always bit of a cop-out.

Not being an aficionado, I didn't think I had a strong opinion on that subject but I watched the original last night (as in the original theatrical release) and the narration felt extremely clunky and jarring. It's also entirely unnecessary.

Another thing struck me: any film of that era that attempts to predict what the near future will look like always assumes we'll have poured all our technological expertise into making cars fly, rather than in developing something to replace the unwieldy cathode ray tube.

[Jurek]

the device of narration was always bit of a cop-out.

Not being an aficionado, I didn't think I had a strong opinion on that subject but I watched the original last night (as in the original theatrical release) and the narration felt extremely clunky and jarring. It's also entirely unnecessary.

Another thing struck me: any film of that era that attempts to predict what the near future will look like always assumes we'll have poured all our technological expertise into making cars fly, rather than in developing something to replace the unwieldy cathode ray tube.

Its a fave film for me - without the narrative - which adds nothing.
For a truly prescient view, check out Terry Gilliam's Brazil of a similar era.
It wholeheartedly encapsulates how fu*ked up things are today thanks to administration and red tape.
Way ahead of its time, despite getting  a bit up itself during the last 20% of the film (IMO)

[mattc]

The 1st-person narration is a nice idea; Raymond Chandler-esque, it fits with the film wanting to be a blend of grimy film noir and sci-fi.

Sadly, it doesn't really work! But it certainly doesn't ruin (that version of) the movie. Its ages since I watched it, but I suspect most of the best scenes don't have any voice-over, perhaps that saved it?

[mattc]

I saw Blade Runner at the ABC Preston, in its first week on general release. The cinema was nearly empty, so the chatter of the teenagers, who thought a film with Harrison Ford in it might have echoes of Star Wars, resounded around the walls. As a film for general viewing, the numerous longeurs, and near darkness on the screen, failed to engage the audience.

Here's a lesson for you - a near-empty cinema containing chattering teenagers who were expecting a different kind of film (preferably designed for those with short attention spans)  is often a disappointing experience!

As I say - your loss ...