Yet Another Cycling Forum

Off Topic => The Pub => Arts and Entertainment => Topic started by: andyoxon on 27 September, 2017, 04:32:21 pm

Title: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: andyoxon on 27 September, 2017, 04:32:21 pm
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...   :thumbsup:

Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 28 September, 2017, 10:26:47 am
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.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: ian on 28 September, 2017, 11:28:09 am
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.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 28 September, 2017, 12:22:14 pm
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... ;D
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: mattc on 28 September, 2017, 12:26:39 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: andyoxon on 28 September, 2017, 06:44:10 pm
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...
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: redshift on 28 September, 2017, 07:13:31 pm
The (spoiler free) first reaction from ubergeek Adam Savage seems to be positive: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQ9F3U3Pax8
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: ian on 28 September, 2017, 07:53:10 pm
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... ;D

I've not watched 1 through 4 yet.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Gattopardo on 28 September, 2017, 08:03:43 pm
No.

Just no.

What is your favourite version of blade runner?
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: vorsprung on 28 September, 2017, 09:22:24 pm
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
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: andyoxon on 28 September, 2017, 10:15:03 pm
I've not see BR for many years - may watch again over next few days.  I'm avoiding any BR2049 trailers.   ;)
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: ElyDave on 29 September, 2017, 09:30:56 am
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?"
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 29 September, 2017, 12:06:43 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: mattc on 29 September, 2017, 12:40:12 pm

I struggle to see how it's much of an advance on
Your loss my friend!
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: hillbilly on 29 September, 2017, 04:27:20 pm
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).
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: hillbilly on 29 September, 2017, 04:28:55 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Mr Larrington on 29 September, 2017, 06:26:51 pm
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... ;D

Get out!!1!
Title: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: citoyen on 29 September, 2017, 08:26:46 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: andyoxon on 29 September, 2017, 10:09:18 pm
He does seem rather keen...   :)

Quote
... 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.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: mattc on 30 September, 2017, 08:20:33 am
He's a very quotable writer:

a stunning enlargement
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 30 September, 2017, 03:14:23 pm

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'.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: citoyen on 30 September, 2017, 04:39:54 pm
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.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Jurek on 30 September, 2017, 04:52:00 pm
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)
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: mattc on 30 September, 2017, 05:09:50 pm
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?
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: mattc on 30 September, 2017, 05:14:12 pm
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 ...
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: citoyen on 30 September, 2017, 06:13:59 pm
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?

I found it intrusive, though I wouldn't go so far as to say it ruins the film.

It doesn't work because unlike a Chandler novel the perspective of the film is not limited to one person's point of view - you've got a good 10 minutes of preamble before Deckard even appears as a character, and then this extradiegetic voice suddenly pipes up unexpectedly. It feels bolted on as an afterthought, and it's clear that the only reason it's there is because they didn't trust the audience to be able to understand what's going without it.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 01 October, 2017, 11:06:26 am
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 ...

It certainly was, I paid for the ticket. No-one was there to tell us it was a cult classic, as at that stage it was a new film, to be judged as such.

I judged it as a mash-up of film noir, and Fritz Lang. Here's a lesson for you Matt, your gain.... although paying for something is different from getting it for free. http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/2015/04/13/blade-runner-vs-metropolis/
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: mattc on 01 October, 2017, 05:31:11 pm
Here's a lesson for you Matt, your gain.... although paying for something is different from getting it for free. http://www.johncoulthart.com/feuilleton/2015/04/13/blade-runner-vs-metropolis/
Thanks.I found this comment was pretty good at explaining why people* liked the film:
Quote
Dick himself was thrilled by what he saw of Blade Runner so I don’t think he was too worried either. The thing with Ridley Scott is that he’s always been more of a visual stylist than a dramatist, three of his early films are set in self-contained fantastic worlds. Critics disliked Blade Runner in 1982 because they were judging it on the story level (and it doesn’t help that it was hacked around beforehand) and seemed unaware that everyone who liked it was responding to the future city, the music, decor, Rutger Hauer, etc. 2001: A Space Odyssey didn’t contribute anything to the evolution of written SF but Blade Runner helped boost the development of cyberpunk. That’s a rare thing; science fiction in film and TV is usually running decades behind its written equivalents.
:thumbsup:


*apart from:
- teenagers and others with small attention spans who expected another Star Wars. And
- those who dismiss any film that steals some styling from other movies.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 01 October, 2017, 09:14:39 pm
It's interesting to look at the view of the future in Blade Runner. Compression/Decompression Algorithms are the main oversight. The massive increase in computing power made powerful codecs viable, so the idea of videophone booths now look quaint, as does the elaborate palaver with the photo-enhancement; both can now be done on smartphones.

That spills over into the way the film, and all films, are now consumed. When I saw it, the only way to access it was to sit in a cinema for 117 minutes. VCRs were becoming widespread, but the format was 4:3, so a lot of the 2.35:1 detail of the 35mm print was lost. You can see it in letter-box format on a HD television, but anyone who has not seen it in a cinema, has not seen the film as intended. But people do look at their favourite vignettes on their phones. 

How many people have seen Blade Runner on a full-sized cinema screen? Multiplexes took over shortly after Blade Runner. I saw a lot of the films of the mid 80s in Leicester Square cinemas. My favourite was the 193 minute 'The Right Stuff', which benefitted from a good sound system. I've got that on Blu-ray.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: StuAff on 01 October, 2017, 09:39:01 pm
How many people have seen Blade Runner on a full-sized cinema screen? Multiplexes took over shortly after Blade Runner. I saw a lot of the films of the mid 80s in Leicester Square cinemas. My favourite was the 193 minute 'The Right Stuff', which benefitted from a good sound system. I've got that on Blu-ray.
Saw Director's Cut back in '92 at the ABC in Portsmouth (long demolished) & again at Reading Film Theatre (in the University's Palmer Building lecture theatre).
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Jakob W on 01 October, 2017, 09:54:36 pm
Not so much video codecs as screen tech in general; all those monochrome CRTs and 7-segment LCD displays now look weirdly anachronistic.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: LEE on 01 October, 2017, 09:57:55 pm
How many people have seen Blade Runner on a full-sized cinema screen?

Me. 

However I find that a Blu-ray, on my big LCD TV, with my audio system, wins hands down because nobody is eating, talking, or generally being annoying.

I've gone off the cinema experience tbh.  It's a pain in the arse.

I actually don't think a big cinema screen adds much, I think it's overrated. I get lost in a film.  I'm there so the screen is as big as my imagination.  I've been lost in black and white films shown on a 15" tube TV plenty of times.

The pictures are even better on the radio and in a book.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Exit Stage Left on 02 October, 2017, 12:05:15 am
I was recalling about the build-up to some of the wide-screen films, when they'd save the opening of the side curtains until after the Pearl & Dean adverts.

The chatter in the cinema didn't matter when it was full, as they'd turn up the sound really high, as an audience in coats absorbed so much sound. Blade Runner was a bit of a problem, as it's a fairly quiet film, and it didn't get the audiences.

I'm not sure it even made back the filming costs on theatre release. It's made money on Video, DVD and Blu-Ray, probably from the same fan-base. Raiders of the Lost Ark didn't have the same problem.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Redlight on 03 October, 2017, 10:01:42 am
... and then this extradiegetic voice suddenly pipes up unexpectedly. It feels bolted on as an afterthought, and it's clear that the only reason it's there is because they didn't trust the audience to be able to understand what's going without it.

It always felt to me to be one of those films that worked better if you had already read the book, in which case you could immerse yourself in the visuals - which were stunning for their time - and not worry too much about working out what was going on. 

You could argue that there is no point making a film that requires pre-reading of the original book and that each should be capable of standing independently, but I think sometimes a film can positively augment a book rather than simply repeat its narrative.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: ian on 03 October, 2017, 07:58:34 pm
I'm actually thinking of getting a narrator. For my life. It would be cool, I think. Add a bit of a noirish tinge.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Jack Standish on 04 October, 2017, 07:05:31 am
Really looking forward to it. I've noticed they've been chopping audio in the trailers with all the jump cuts to seemingly change the meaning of the dialogues and make it look like a generic plot about a greedy corporate head played by Leto. I guess they are trying to do a smart marketing thing, attract the ones who likes simple things and keep the more sophisticated fans surprised when it comes out.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: mattc on 04 October, 2017, 10:35:24 am
I'm actually thinking of getting a narrator. For my life. It would be cool, I think. Add a bit of a noirish tinge.
Your (superb) idea is at least 17 years old. Here is where I first met it:

http://www.halfbakery.com/idea/Film_20Noir_20Home#1275000248
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: citoyen on 04 October, 2017, 10:40:56 am
I'm actually thinking of getting a narrator. For my life. It would be cool, I think. Add a bit of a noirish tinge.

If I had a narrator for my life, it wouldn't sound noirish so much as Adrian Mole-ish.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: ian on 04 October, 2017, 10:50:41 am
Apropos of nothing*, I saw the Adrian Mole musical the other day. That was a blast from the past. But yes, I'd hire an appropriate narrator. I like the guy that does the movie trailers. I think he'd be ideal. He'd have to talk quietly today though as my broken patio window is still crinkling away.

*I like saying this, it makes me sound 2.3 times more clever than I actually am.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Mr Larrington on 07 October, 2017, 08:12:58 pm
Just in from seeing this, because Miss von Brandenburg said we had to.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: ian on 09 October, 2017, 01:08:25 pm
Just in from seeing this, because Miss von Brandenburg said we had to.

(click to show/hide)

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: PaulF on 09 October, 2017, 01:23:04 pm
Went to see it yesterday, thought it was brilliant. I was captivated throughout
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Robh on 09 October, 2017, 01:54:03 pm
Just in from seeing this, because Miss von Brandenburg said we had to.

(click to show/hide)

Wot he sed.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: tonycollinet on 09 October, 2017, 09:26:29 pm
I was never a fan of the original, but saw it Saturday, and loved it.

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Jakob on 10 October, 2017, 05:01:43 am
Saw it last night.
Did not catch the main plot twist and it did set up nicely for a sequel...which I'm not so sure is a good idea.
Did find it very very slow at times.
Very very pretty..even the grim stuff is extremely well made. (I'm biased as I worked on it, but still!).
However...I can't help thinking that this story would have been stronger on it's own, ie without tying it back to the original BR.
Soundtrack was extremely hit & miss...After the success of Dunkirk, Zimmer was back to his old tricks and it didn't really work.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Riggers on 10 October, 2017, 10:24:31 am
Yes, I had to stick my fingers in my ears last night, every time that really loud discordant BBBBWWWWWAAAAAA!!! was going on.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Nuncio on 10 October, 2017, 01:32:23 pm
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... ;D

I've not watched 1 through 4 yet.

On a similar note, can anyone advise if BR2049 would make much sense if you haven't watched 1 through 2048 yet?
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: LEE on 10 October, 2017, 01:38:19 pm
On a similar note, can anyone advise if BR2049 would make much sense if you haven't watched 1 through 2048 yet?

Sometimes it's best not to see the first film in a series.  I watched Blackhawk Down right after watching Watership Down and, it seemed to me, the Director had abandoned the original plot entirely.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Riggers on 10 October, 2017, 01:40:34 pm
^
Excellent! Post Of The Day!!!!
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Karla on 11 October, 2017, 03:00:52 pm
Just in from seeing this, because Miss von Brandenburg said we had to.

(click to show/hide)

I actually thought it was just the right length, it kept me absorbed throughout and there was no fat that needed trimming.  Excellent film!
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: redshift on 11 October, 2017, 09:33:20 pm
Saw it and liked it.  There were some niggles, but overall I enjoyed it.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: citoyen on 15 October, 2017, 08:11:26 pm
Friendfacepost:

Little known fact. The new Bladerunner movie was based on a Philip K Dick story entitled "Do Androids Dream of Getting the Last Three Hours of Their Bloody Life Back?".
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: mattc on 22 October, 2017, 04:08:16 pm
Very very good  :) :thumbsup:

You can certainly point out flaws, so it's not on my "classics" list, but definitely 3 hours* well spent. I do try to spend my rare cinema tenners on stuff that benefits from a big screen and near-deafening sound systems, and this is definitely one. I particularly enjoyed all the longeurs (and the lack of teens in the theatre).

But where was all the orange?? The reviews all promised hours of orange, but it was only one short section. Hrrmph.


*It only took 2.5 to watch, but N insists on sitting down before even the adverts start  :facepalm:
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: ian on 23 October, 2017, 01:12:44 pm
Talking to a bunch of my wife's female friends and then a few work colleagues in recent days, I've established that women simply haven't seen Blade Runner or more importantly don't seem inclined. Holy generalized genderization, Batman. My wife gave part deux a shrugged 'ok' after sleeping through the original. The cinema audience was very male and of a certain age. That's what the nerdogeddon will look like.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: mattc on 23 October, 2017, 01:18:20 pm
Talking to a bunch of my wife's female friends and then a few work colleagues in recent days, I've established that women simply haven't seen Blade Runner or more importantly don't seem inclined. Holy generalized genderization, Batman. My wife gave part deux a shrugged 'ok' after sleeping through the original. The cinema audience was very male and of a certain age. That's what the nerdogeddon will look like.
.... and clearly it will start in Croydon*.

Our screening had just the one single bloke (who looked about my age  :facepalm: ), but I think the rest of us were all couples.


*where do Croydonians see their films now?? for years, the one at Purley was part of my life - it's flats now, IIRC? I'm guessing there is something huge on the Purley Way by now ....
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: Wascally Weasel on 23 October, 2017, 02:03:05 pm
Talking to a bunch of my wife's female friends and then a few work colleagues in recent days, I've established that women simply haven't seen Blade Runner or more importantly don't seem inclined. Holy generalized genderization, Batman. My wife gave part deux a shrugged 'ok' after sleeping through the original. The cinema audience was very male and of a certain age. That's what the nerdogeddon will look like.
.... and clearly it will start in Croydon*.

Our screening had just the one single bloke (who looked about my age  :facepalm: ), but I think the rest of us were all couples.


*where do Croydonians see their films now?? for years, the one at Purley was part of my life - it's flats now, IIRC? I'm guessing there is something huge on the Purley Way by now ....

There's a Vue in Croydon (called Grants to differentiate with the Vue in Purley).

There's also this:

http://www.davidleancinema.org.uk/
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: ian on 23 October, 2017, 04:03:26 pm
There is the usual multiplex on Purley Way (along with obligatory chain restaurants and an audience more interested in their phones than what's showing). And the Vue and David Lean as mention in downtown Croydonia. All the cinemas between Croydon and Redhill have closed over the years.

I only bother with the Imax at Waterloo these days owing to my jaded sense of shock and awe. I need the big telly and loud sound to stop me murdering all the nacho crunchers.

(I don't by-the-by live in Croydon, someone just rather untidily left it in my way.)
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: citoyen on 23 October, 2017, 04:58:14 pm
If I lived in Croydon, I'd get on the tram and go to the Curzon in Wimbledon.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: ian on 23 October, 2017, 05:04:32 pm
The tram alone usually provides more than enough entertainment.
Title: Re: Blade Runner 2049.
Post by: harvey on 24 November, 2017, 11:58:48 am
Finally, got to see it. Still showing on the big screen at a few cinemas. While not quite blown away was very absorbed throughout. Still partial to the first one however.