Blade Runner 2049 Page 31

  • thelzdking 17 Feb 2018 18:31:36 8,827 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Cheers man!
  • drhickman1983 19 Feb 2018 01:32:34 5,651 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Disappointing. Trying to think of an element I actually enjoyed and I can't. Good cinematography I guess.
  • Deleted user 19 February 2018 03:15:39
    I actually wasn't overly enamoured with it. The pacing was glacial, the first was slow but this was approaching agonising and I really didn't feel like there was all that much to chew on.

    I will say that I didn't watch it in the greatest of circumstances, late at night and ended up in 4 parts. At some point I'll give it another go as I really want to believe I missed something, I own it now so I should.

    Cinematography and the soundtrack in particular were top drawer.
  • drhickman1983 19 Feb 2018 06:25:30 5,651 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I wasn't a fan of the soundtrack. I found the industrial drones kinda cool at first, but they quickly became a bit grating and overbearing for me. By the end I just wanted it to shut up.

    Compared to Vangelis's majestic score this was just a tuneless dirge. I know Hans Zimmer deals with mood more than melody, and in some films I love his work (Dunkirk's score is amazing at ratcheting up the tension), but it failed to engage me here.

    Edited by drhickman1983 at 06:30:02 19-02-2018
  • Armoured_Bear 19 Feb 2018 10:04:26 25,102 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    drhickman1983 wrote:
    I wasn't a fan of the soundtrack. I found the industrial drones kinda cool at first, but they quickly became a bit grating and overbearing for me. By the end I just wanted it to shut up.

    Compared to Vangelis's majestic score this was just a tuneless dirge. I know Hans Zimmer deals with mood more than melody, and in some films I love his work (Dunkirk's score is amazing at ratcheting up the tension), but it failed to engage me here.
    I thought it was mesmerising, when I think of the film I can't not remember how powerful and atmospheric the soundtrack was.
    Seeing it in a seriously good cinema was one of my most memorable ever cinema viewings.

    Beautiful, beautiful film.
  • drhickman1983 19 Feb 2018 10:15:48 5,651 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    My memory of the score is basically one atonal industrial groan after another which I can only describe as "GRRRRNNNNN.."

    Overbearing and as subtle as a brick to the face.

    A few moments here and there had an analogue synth which threatened to break into something resembling melody, but then it didn't.

    And the thing is I quite like drone music, so I ought to have enjoyed this. But I didn't.

    I'm sure it was an intentional choice but I found the art direction quite sparse. So many scenes in fog or smog or drizzle so there was only a couple of points of interest on screen. It felt a bit more abstract then the first film. That's not perhaps a criticism as such, but it didn't have the same sense of a bustling city.

    Edited by drhickman1983 at 10:19:25 19-02-2018
  • thelzdking 19 Feb 2018 11:07:50 8,827 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    "Interlinked."
    "Interlinked."
    "Like cells interlinked."
    "Like cells interlinked."

    Amazing film, amazing cinematography and amazing art design. Thanks to SamNunn I re-watched it and I picked up a lot more detail, especially in Joi and Luv. I think there's a lot more nuance I've missed too.
  • retro74 19 Feb 2018 11:58:46 2,610 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    The side by side trailer thing is amazing, never seen anything quite like that before
  • Tonka 19 Feb 2018 12:01:32 28,854 posts
    Seen 11 minutes ago
    Registered 15 years ago
    SamNunn?
    Side by side trailer?

    Whaaaaa?
  • JoeBlade 27 Feb 2018 09:01:29 4,290 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Finally got around to buying the DVD. Despite seeing it three times on the big screen before I was still massively impressed with the visuals and the audio. Denis Villeneuve and Hans Zimmer are golden gods.

    It's the simple things that impressed me most; the movement of the water reflections on the ceiling in Wallace's sanctuary, the overpowering bass tone at the start of K's encounter with Deckard. Amazing.
  • Armoured_Bear 27 Feb 2018 09:03:41 25,102 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    JoeBlade wrote:
    Finally got around to buying the DVD. Despite seeing it three times on the big screen before I was still massively impressed with the visuals and the audio. Denis Villeneuve and Hans Zimmer are golden gods.

    It's the simple things that impressed me most; the movement of the water reflections on the ceiling in Wallace's sanctuary, the overpowering bass tone at the start of K's encounter with Deckard. Amazing.
    Why would you buy a film like that on DVD instead of blu-Ray?
  • Deleted user 27 February 2018 09:10:07
    One thing I really loved about this movie is how it continued one aspect of rogue replicants that was never explicitly explored in the first film but for which there was never any real direct exposition: the fact that replicants are basically kids in overpowered adult bodies packed full of knowledge.

    You see it a lot in the dialogue and facial expressions of the reps (Roy's reaction to telling Pris about Leon's death, the way Roy hides behind Pris behind a column before admitting his secret to J.F.) and this is really continued in Luv & Sapper. We don't see a lot of Sapper in the film itself, but if you watch "Nowhere to Run", we see that he best see eye-to-eye with a little girl, and Luv acts like a mischievous little monkey whenever she does something she considers to be "naughty".
  • Deleted user 27 February 2018 09:15:34
    Why would you buy a film like that on DVD instead of blu-Ray?
    Some people have 32" TVs that really don't benefit from full HD resolutions, and have no decent sound system to make the best of the reduced compression of Bluray or even 4K.

    The reason DVD is holding on so well commercially is that much of the cheaper hardware out there still doesn't make for a meaningful difference between DVD and BD.

    I've got a 55" 1080p HDTV (mid-range Sony at the time I bought it four years ago) and the difference between DVD and Bluray is pretty clear, but my aging surround system (bought it cheap in 2008) really only benefits from Bluray with the lower dynamic range compression. There's little noticeable difference in audio fidelity.

    That being said, I'd love to compare the DVD release of BR2049 on my hardware, given that it relies so much on neon colours and heavy, deep bass output through the rear speakers.
  • Armoured_Bear 27 Feb 2018 09:20:42 25,102 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    FilthyAnimal wrote:
    Why would you buy a film like that on DVD instead of blu-Ray?
    Some people have 32" TVs that really don't benefit from full HD resolutions, and have no decent sound system to make the best of the reduced compression of Bluray or even 4K.

    The reason DVD is holding on so well commercially is that much of the cheaper hardware out there still doesn't make for a meaningful difference between DVD and BD.

    I've got a 55" 1080p HDTV (mid-range Sony at the time I bought it four years ago) and the difference between DVD and Bluray is pretty clear, but my aging surround system (bought it cheap in 2008) really only benefits from Bluray with the lower dynamic range compression. There's little noticeable difference in audio fidelity.

    That being said, I'd love to compare the DVD release of BR2049 on my hardware, given that it relies so much on neon colours and heavy, deep bass output through the rear speakers.

    Every telly benefits from going from SD to HD, itís not a small change.
  • Decks Best Forumite, 2016 27 Feb 2018 09:23:01 17,473 posts
    Seen 10 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Yeah a 32" still looks way better in HD than SD.
  • thelzdking 27 Feb 2018 09:28:23 8,827 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I cannot abide SD now. I've become a right resolution snob.
  • beastmaster 27 Feb 2018 09:28:30 18,915 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 14 years ago
    Watched this again last night. A much better film for be second time around. A lot more palatable as a home release. Originally was a 6/10 and now I'd give it an 8.

    Will probably end up buying both films on 4K HDR when I get my new telly and Blu-Ray plater as it looks and sounds amazing.
  • Armoured_Bear 27 Feb 2018 09:32:01 25,102 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    thelzdking wrote:
    I cannot abide SD now. I've become a right resolution snob.
    I havenít seen it for years and even then I wanted to tear my eyeballs out :)
  • JoeBlade 27 Feb 2018 09:52:44 4,290 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Why would you buy a film like that on DVD instead of blu-Ray?
    I agree this film would surely benefit from the increase in quality. However, my eyes and ears are so fucked up from decades of screens and concerts I barely notice the difference so I don't bother.

    But yeah, I'd recommend watching this in the highest quality you have access to, it's worth it (for non old farts like myself, that is)
  • Armoured_Bear 27 Feb 2018 10:05:24 25,102 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    JoeBlade wrote:
    Armoured_Bear wrote:
    Why would you buy a film like that on DVD instead of blu-Ray?
    I agree this film would surely benefit from the increase in quality. However, my eyes and ears are so fucked up from decades of screens and concerts I barely notice the difference so I don't bother.

    But yeah, I'd recommend watching this in the highest quality you have access to, it's worth it (for non old farts like myself, that is)
    If your eyes canít tell, go to the optician !
  • Tomo 27 Feb 2018 10:25:51 16,241 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    Tonka wrote:
    SamNunn?
    Side by side trailer?

    Whaaaaa?
    I'm guessing he means this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5OHnY20pK0

    Pretty cool!
  • Zerobob 27 Feb 2018 12:45:02 2,155 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Quick question about something that's been irritating me since seeing this yesterday.

    How did K know that Deckard was intimate with Rachael and hence the father of the replicant child he was looking for?

    I'm forced to assume it was when K visited the Wallace Corporation and he heard the audio memory where Deckard was interviewing Rachael, but it's one hell of a leap to assume they were intimate together, and an even bigger leap to assume Deckard was the father, based solely on the sketchy interview recording.

    Yes, the radioactive properties of the wooden horse ultimately lead K to Deckard's location in Vegas, but K was expecting to meet Deckard there. How was he expecting this?

    Until K started arbitrarily tracking down Deckard I'd simply assumed Sapper was the father of the missing replicant child. I've not seen the original Blade Runner in forever, and so I had no idea of the relevance of the Deckard and Rachael characters, or indeed who they were, until it became apparent later on in this story.
  • 1Million_Tons_of_TNT 27 Feb 2018 12:50:53 89 posts
    Seen 5 days ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Caved in a lunchtime, and picked up the Bluray. I know i'm going to be comparing it to the original.
  • Deleted user 27 February 2018 13:02:05
    @Zerobob I don't think he knew for certain. I assume it was based on his observation that there was something going on between Deckard and Rachael that he took that shot in the dark and made the connection, which Deckard confirmed.

    If you look back from K's perspective: the hair DNA analysis provides no name, but is associated with the Voight-Kampff recording of the unknown replicant and an investigating officer who is mentioned only by name as "Mr Deckard". Therefore, Deckard is K's only lead to finding the deceased replicant, so he would have had to locate him anyway, regardless of Deckard's relationship to the decedent replicant.

    Because Deckard and the replicants had gone to such lengths to hide the child, he knew that if he had asked Deckard if he had a child, Deckard would have just flat out denied it.


    Edited by FilthyAnimal at 13:03:24 27-02-2018
  • JoeBlade 27 Feb 2018 13:30:47 4,290 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 16 years ago
    @FilthyAnimal That's pretty much what I took away from it as well. K's basically following up on leads that point towards the child and most likely the father as well, but he's not certain about that - let alone who the father could be - until they actually meet.

    The fact that traces have been so carefully and expertly erased, then finding out there's a link to a legendary Blade Runner is reason enough to at least start formulating some theories.
  • Zerobob 27 Feb 2018 16:21:00 2,155 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    @FilthyAnimal Cheers for the reply. Yeah I agree it was his only lead, so he'd definitely follow it up anyway, I thought the same thing. I thought the trail went cold almost immediately though, when the old guy tells K that Deckard has "retired", and so after that K simply dropped this line of investigation and turned his attention towards the wooden horse memory, when it became apparent that it was linked with Rachael and her child.

    Ultimately, I suppose I just didn't read as much into it as K's character did when he picked up something from the audio memory (when K said Rachael was "provoking" Deckard) and then further assuming Deckard's probable link to Rachael. I just thought maybe I'd missed a key bit of dialogue or something. Thanks for the clarification.
  • 1Million_Tons_of_TNT 28 Feb 2018 14:19:32 89 posts
    Seen 5 days ago
    Registered 1 year ago
    Watched Blade Runner 2049 last night. Good if somewhat slow. The first 2 hours are quite boring. Harrison Ford shows up about 2 hours into the story. Once he appears the film gets going. Gosling does a good job playing K

    Rachael the replicant shows up in cgi form. While it is possible to tell she is cgi, its an impressive effort compared to Disney's cgi Prince Leia effort.
    Over all the feel of the film is reminiscent of the original, which is admirable. It feels bigger in scale and more expensive.

    The audio, mostly made up of noise appeared to lack a theme song. I half expected the end credits to roll with a new take on the original excellent theme song. But no, just lots of noise which worked ok with visual effect applied to the end credits.

    Edited by 1Million_Tons_of_TNT at 14:42:42 28-02-2018
  • Deleted user 28 February 2018 14:21:48
    @1Million_Tons_of_TNT You see the button in the middle of the "Reply" toolbar with a flag? What does it say?

    A little hint.

    Edited by FilthyAnimal at 14:23:58 28-02-2018
  • Deleted user 28 February 2018 14:24:16
    @1Million_Tons_of_TNT i didn't know princess leia was cgi, so they did reasonably well I think for me not to notice.
  • Armoured_Bear 28 Feb 2018 14:39:14 25,102 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    GuybrushThreepwood wrote:
    @1Million_Tons_of_TNT i didn't know princess leia was cgi, so they did reasonably well I think for me not to notice.
    She wasnít.
Log in or register to reply

Sometimes posts may contain links to online retail stores. If you click on one and make a purchase we may receive a small commission. For more information, go here.