The long overdue _Blade Runner_ thread

og Blade Runner is a brilliant and visionary aesthetic achievement that also happens to be a zzzzzzz movie imo so maybe i don't hold the same protective reverence

y'all almost as bad as nerds who pile on critics who give a bad review to the nerd movie they haven't even seen yet

― circa1916, Saturday, September 30, 2017 4:08 PM (seventeen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes one of these things is definitely almost as bad as the other

it's too bad they didn't make an all-female blade runner

y'all almost as bad as nerds who pile on critics who give a bad review to the nerd movie they haven't even seen yet

― circa1916, Saturday, September 30, 2017 4:08 PM (seventeen minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes one of these things is definitely almost as bad as the other

Well I CONTEND... that it almost is?

those nerds routinely send death and rape threats so uh maybe not

yeah, we're used to disappointment and we only blame ourselves

Well who really knows what kinda shit Ned’s been e-mailing these ppl.

xp

jk Ned <3

Tsk.

The Strange Case of Dr Raggett and Mr Ned

https://media.giphy.com/media/yR84fJ0VVBHeE/giphy.gif

Of course.

http://lwlies.com/reviews/blade-runner-2049/

well we have one dissenting voice at least

that's weirdly reassuring

up to 4 dissents on RT, including the AP

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory/review-gorgeous-2049-breaks-blade-runner-spell-50176968

Do RT scores tend to peak early and decrease over time? I heard something like that for one movie recently, where the explanation was that critics who are interested enough (or invited) to attend advance screenings are also more likely to give positive reviews.

yes that almost always happens

this is one of the many, many reasons RT is terrible and should never be used by anyone

it is completely unreliable and there are often gaping holes in many of its filmographies. I can't think why I use it more than imdb, but for some reason I do.

This still of Harrison Ford accidentally punching Ryan Gosling for real during a Blade Runner 2049 scene is amazing. pic.twitter.com/3uKIxHo1AT

— Toucan Dan (@GolazoDan) September 30, 2017

friend saw it last night and said it was pretty but a bore and descends into the usual scifi action punchy punchy shooty shooty cliches

Gosling has little about him that suggests android, unless future scientists are planning to work extremely hard on a "charmingly bemused" setting.

lol

(xps) "accidentally"

but that is the disposition I naturally ascribe to most robots. I think

more bemused than human

Yeah, that's basically Data.

Gosling in Drive seemed androidlike

thx 4 nu-screenname mh

Drive seemed like it was directed by a Tony Scott replicant as well.

speaking of Tony Scott! NYT review:

“[Warner Bros.] has been unusually insistent in its pleas to critics not to reveal plot points. That’s fair enough, but it’s also evidence of how imaginatively impoverished big-budget movies have become.

“Like any great movie, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner cannot be spoiled. It repays repeated viewing because its mysteries are too deep to be solved and don’t depend on the sequence of events.

“Denis Villeneuve’s film, by contrast, is a carefully engineered narrative puzzle, and its power dissipates as the pieces snap into place. As sumptuous and surprising as it is from one scene to the next, it lacks the creative excess, the intriguing opacity and the haunting residue of its predecessor.

“As such, Blade Runner 2049 stands in relation to Blade Runner almost exactly as K stands in relation to Deckard before the two meet: as a more docile, less rebellious ‘improvement,’ tweaked and retrofitted to meet consumer demand.

“But now and then — when Ryan Gosling‘s K and Harrison Ford‘s Deckard are knocking around the old gambling palace; when K visits an enigmatic mind-technician played by Mackenzie Davis — you get an inkling that something else might have been possible. Something freer, more romantic, more heroic, less determined by the corporate program.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/movies/blade-runner-2049-review-ryan-gosling-harrison-ford.html?_r=0

Like any great movie, Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner cannot be spoiled.

truthbomb

sometimes a classic movie gets a sequel that isn't too shabby. 2010 is not bad at all, and The Two Jakes is a bit of a mess but it's interesting and occasionally outstanding (and features a terrific supporting performance from Harvey Keitel.) I'm hoping this is similar to that, and less along the lines of what Ridley was doing w/his recent Alien followups.

"Good news! It's the best thing since The Godfather Part III!"

apparently i said the exact same thing upthread! anyway...

If you want to know how ridiculous Rotten Tomatoes is, the Scott review is categorized as "fresh." Low expectations run the world.

Ned otm

David Edelstein is even more ambivalent than Scott ("I thought it was okay") but I'm not sure I ever read this before:

It’s permissible to answer the question, “Does Blade Runner 2049 have any more connection to the paranoid visionary Philip K. Dick and his novel, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? than Blade Runner?” A bit. It’s a little less noir, a little more philosophical. Dick didn’t think Blade Runner was very Dick-ian. He didn’t live to see the movie (he died of a stroke at 53 in 1982), but he got hold of the script after Ridley Scott said in an interview that he’d found the novel too difficult to read.

Dick’s approval of the screenplay had more than a touch of irony. “It was terrific,” he wrote. “It bore no relation to the book. Oddly, in some ways it was better. What my story will become is one titanic lurid collision of androids being blown up, androids killing humans, general confusion and murder, all very exciting to watch. Makes my book seem dull by comparison.” He added, “As a writer, though, I’d like to see some of my ideas, not just special effects of my ideas, used.”

http://www.vulture.com/2017/09/blade-runner-2049-cant-match-its-predecessor.html

xxxxxxxxposts RT is just fine if you do more than just glance at the numerical score and actually read the linked reviews in a "all in one place" setting.

it's just too many people mistake it for a score that an individual "Rotten Tomatoes" panel gave it

or think the % reflects the level of enjoyment rather than the % of critics that RT determined "liked" the movie after reading the reviews

Absolutely, it's fine as an aggregator of current reviews

It's when it attempts to judge film history that it goes off base

i’m going to make a site that lets you fave your trusted critics or at least shows prior movies with their reviews, then asks you if you agree with them, and caters a score just for you

brb patenting that

There's some PKD series on BBC 4 Amazon or something called Electric Dreams if you want to get back to the heart music

Absolutely, it's fine as an aggregator of current reviews

If that was all it did it would be fine but it's...actually you know what I'm not gonna get on this soapbox today

Some actual critics are seeing this now and have less-than-impressed takes

Hi all
If I were to rewatch Blade Runner prior to the new one, is "Final Cut" the definitive version?

there is no definitive version

Can one even see the original June '82 release version anymore? Or has it gone to movie purgatory w/ the original Star Wars cuts?

There was a boxset with multiple version after The Final Cut came out.

TFC is the definitive version, I suppose, but they all have the boring middle stretch.

what happened to the cut w/ all the buttsecks

Can one even see the original June '82 release version anymore

i watched it the other day! it's on disc three of my blu ray copy