Blade Runner 2049 - Part 4

[Spider-Fan]

That’s true but at least in certain cases like Kingdom of Heaven, the theatrical cut is vastly inferior to the director’s cut, and his fans blame the studio for interfering. Instead, perhaps they should consider that Scott occasionally has problems making a complete film that fits into a standard timeframe.

And many of Scott’s films clock in at around 150 minutes, which is only about 13 minutes less than Blade Runner 2049.

I don’t know. It seems to me that Scott is just trying to wash his hands of this, blaming Villanueve for the choices he made rather than accepting that his original film, though regarded as a highly influential classic, isn’t as popular as they all thought it was. He also may be a little bitter about how many people have claimed that 2049 is better than its predecessor.

To be fair, Blade Runner is like, not even 2hrs. I loved Blade Runner 2049 overall, but I can see what Scott is saying. The film is great, but its pace is not for everyone. If they had made it tighter, the film may not have been as artistically satisfying, but may have been more accessible. I still prefer Blade Runner, but Blade Runner 2049 is a solid follow up.

 

[Mandon Knight]

That’s true but at least in certain cases like Kingdom of Heaven, the theatrical cut is vastly inferior to the director’s cut, and his fans blame the studio for interfering. Instead, perhaps they should consider that Scott occasionally has problems making a complete film that fits into a standard timeframe.

And many of Scott’s films clock in at around 150 minutes, which is only about 13 minutes less than Blade Runner 2049.

I don’t know. It seems to me that Scott is just trying to wash his hands of this, blaming Villanueve for the choices he made rather than accepting that his original film, though regarded as a highly influential classic, isn’t as popular as they all thought it was. He also may be a little bitter about how many people have claimed that 2049 is better than its predecessor.

I think has a lot to do with his reaction, he strikes me as a nasty piece of work from most interviews and doc's I've seen. Smug. ego-ist with a massive inflated opinion of his own worth.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Yeah. And to be fair, he’s earned the right to be a bit egotistical because he’s made some of the most influential films of all time. But on the other hand, he’s also made Alien Covenant, Robin Hood and that whitewashed Moses movie. He’s not infallible by any stretch.

 

[Mandon Knight]

Yeah. And to be fair, he’s earned the right to be a bit egotistical because he’s made some of the most influential films of all time. But on the other hand, he’s also made Alien Covenant, Robin Hood and that whitewashed Moses movie. He’s not infallible by any stretch.

Don't get me wrong, he's a great film maker and has made some wonderful films over the years but as a man to work for and with, I bet he's a real bastard.

 

[Roose Bolton]

He's definitely egotistical, but I've never heard of him being especially difficult with the people he works with. He and Harrison Ford clashed on the set of the original, but that's roughly the only time that immediately comes to mind.

And while his comments on 2049 are slightly *****y, he does also take ownership of some of the responsibility for what he deems to be the film's failure.

 

[samsnee]

I think his comments were taken out of context as it was only half quoted. Here’s the full quote.

What did you make of the way Blade Runner 2049 was received?

[Whispers] I have to be careful what I say. I have to be careful what I say. It was ****ing way too long. F*** me! And most of that script’s mine.

He’s basically saying it was too long but also he wrote most it so he’s the reason it is.

 

[BlackFox]

Looking forward to the extras on this one, hope there is plenty of extra stuff on the blu-rays.

 

[Black Narcissus]

That entire interview is great. He takes a dig at Disney in it too. Lawd.

 

[Deck Rickard]

I think his comments were taken out of context as it was only half quoted. Here’s the full quote.



He’s basically saying it was too long but also he wrote most it so he’s the reason it is.

Ah, well then that changes things. Never mind my previous comments.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Someone is upset someone else made a better Blade Runner film then him. Like Cameron made a better Alien movie.

Also someone wants a Star Wars job.

 

[Man in the Suit]

Whoa, whoa whoa... Aliens isn't better than Alien.

 

[Roose Bolton]

Someone is upset someone else made a better Blade Runner film then him. Like Cameron made a better Alien movie.

Also someone wants a Star Wars job.

He literally says that if 2049 has a problem, it's partially his fault lol

 

[TheVileOne]

If he worked on the script, I wonder why he didn't receive a credit.

 

[The Chris]

Whoa, whoa whoa... Aliens isn't better than Alien.

That's a debatable question the same way Godfather Part 1 vs Part 2 and T1 vs T2 are. They both are awesome.

 

[Hurm...]

If he worked on the script, I wonder why he didn't receive a credit.

Maybe he gave some story beats to the writers and commissioned those specific writers to work on the movie? That's my assumption.

 

[Persona]

Blade Runner 2049 is in no way, shape, or form a better film than the original.

It's a good movie, but its script and some of its subplots let it down a bit. The production team did a bang-up job with what they had. After reading Ridley's interview, sounds like Villeneuve and the other writers did a good job finessing Ridley's goofy ass ideas for the sequel into something that actually mostly worked, so good on them.

Lightning struck twice for Ridley. Alien and Blade Runner. Two of the greatest and most influential sci-fi films ever made, and they will remain that. Blade Runner is a singular film, and the director's and Final Cuts emphasize that. It subverted tropes, it ditched conventional plot for aesthetic, atmosphere, visual lyricism, and theme, its conflict happens between pawns in a system, not good guys vs. bad guys. It questions reality, consciousness, humanity... and in its conclusion quietly affirms the beauty of life, even in a world that's gone mad with ugliness.

Sure, people are free to like 2049 better. I get it. There's a bit more going on in 2049, the aesthetic is more modern, there are more performances to latch onto, the story is a little bit more of a, well, story... but I don't think there's that many people that are claiming it is better than the original. At least not much of anyone that Ridley Scott's paying attention to, most critics agree that the original is the better film (and, I mean, it's an iconic film in cineaste culture now, whereas 2049 isn't even making it on a lot of critic's top ten lists... but maybe it will gain more appreciation later like its predecessor did, I dunno). I think Ridley's just a bit of a jerk and he came off a tad drunk in that interview, ha.

 

[Black Narcissus]

If he worked on the script, I wonder why he didn't receive a credit.

I sit with writers for an inordinate amount of time and I will not take credit, because it means I’ve got to sit there with a tape recorder while we talk. I can’t do that to a good writer. But I have to, because to prove I’m part of the actual process, I have to then have an endless amount of proof, and I can’t be bothered.

more, but spoilers for the bald bastahs on here who have not seen this:

Spoiler

But the big idea comes from Blade Runner. Tyrell is a trillionaire, maybe 5 to 10 percent of his business is AI. Like God, he has created perfect beings that, for all intents and purposes, there is no telling the difference from humans. Then he says, “You know what? I’m going to create an AI. I’ll have a male and female, they will not know that they’re both AIs, I’ll have them meet each other, they will fall in love, they will consummate, and they will have a child.” That’s the first film. The second film is, what happens to the baby? You’ve got to have the baby, you can’t have the mother, so the mother has to inexplicably die four months after she breastfeeds. The bones are found in the box at the foot of the tree — that’s all me. And the digital girlfriend is me. I wanted an evolution from Pris, who is inordinately sexy in the original, right?

 

[I Am The Knight]

Blade Runner 2049 cannot be a better Blade Runner film than Blade Runner because it has Jared Leto's performance in it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

He literally says that if 2049 has a problem, it's partially his fault lol

That is covering his tracks. He is taking credit for what is good. Sole credit really. Which is really funny. Because the film works so well because of the directing, editing, acting and score.

 

[TheVileOne]

lol

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Blade Runner 2049 is in no way, shape, or form a better film than the original.

It's a good movie, but its script and some of its subplots let it down a bit. The production team did a bang-up job with what they had. After reading Ridley's interview, sounds like Villeneuve and the other writers did a good job finessing Ridley's goofy ass ideas for the sequel into something that actually mostly worked, so good on them.

Lightning struck twice for Ridley. Alien and Blade Runner. Two of the greatest and most influential sci-fi films ever made, and they will remain that. Blade Runner is a singular film, and the director's and Final Cuts emphasize that. It subverted tropes, it ditched conventional plot for aesthetic, atmosphere, visual lyricism, and theme, its conflict happens between pawns in a system, not good guys vs. bad guys. It questions reality, consciousness, humanity... and in its conclusion quietly affirms the beauty of life, even in a world that's gone mad with ugliness.

Sure, people are free to like 2049 better. I get it. There's a bit more going on in 2049, the aesthetic is more modern, there are more performances to latch onto, the story is a little bit more of a, well, story... but I don't think there's that many people that are claiming it is better than the original. At least not much of anyone that Ridley Scott's paying attention to, most critics agree that the original is the better film (and, I mean, it's an iconic film in cineaste culture now, whereas 2049 isn't even making it on a lot of critic's top ten lists... but maybe it will gain more appreciation later like its predecessor did, I dunno). I think Ridley's just a bit of a jerk and he came off a tad drunk in that interview, ha.

It is a better film. In nearly every single way not named Jared Leto. Which surprised me. Even at basically 150 mins without credits, it felt way shorter then the original film that I watched right before. Also, no rape based main "love" story.

One of the best aspects of 2049 is how much there is to the major characters. The original film, there isn't much to anyone other then Batty, and that includes Deckard. K, Luv, Joi, Stelline, Joshi. Deckard has a lot more character here.

In a year where I saw a lot of films I loved. Like all time love. I don't think any movie had more single scenes I just loved. the openin, Sea Wall, the baseline test, K visiting Stelline, every scene with Joi, K and Deckard, Luv and Joshi, the ending. Hell I can watch the transitions scene all day, with the score over the landscape. It is a great, great film, one I haven't been able to stop watching since getting it on digital. 2049 has actually made me look lesser on the original, which is just odd. But there you go.

 

[Roose Bolton]

That is covering his tracks. He is taking credit for what is good. Sole credit really. Which is really funny. Because the film works so well because of the directing, editing, acting and score.

Not really, he's saying he thinks it didn't do well at the box office (the actual original question posed to him that prompted his response) because it was too long, and in the same breath says that the story is his.

And if you disagree with me, you're a supporter of Max Landis

 

[Persona]

It is a better film. In nearly every single way not named Jared Leto. Which surprised me. Even at basically 150 mins without credits, it felt way shorter then the original film that I watched right before. Also, no rape based main "love" story.

One of the best aspects of 2049 is how much there is to the major characters. The original film, there isn't much to anyone other then Batty, and that includes Deckard. K, Luv, Joi, Stelline, Joshi. Deckard has a lot more character here.

In a year where I saw a lot of films I loved. Like all time love. I don't think any movie had more single scenes I just loved. the openin, Sea Wall, the baseline test, K visiting Stelline, every scene with Joi, K and Deckard, Luv and Joshi, the ending. Hell I can watch the transitions scene all day, with the score over the landscape. It is a great, great film, one I haven't been able to stop watching since getting it on digital. 2049 has actually made me look lesser on the original, which is just odd. But there you go.

different strokes

it can't begin to touch the original for me, it's too awkward and unwieldy with the Her rip-off subplot with Joi (though that relationship does serve a strong purpose in the film, if distracted from too much by the film's diffuse focus once Deckard enters) and, even worse, the cliched resistance subplot that should have been cut from the film entirely. I don't like that the film retroactively grafts world-shattering import on the events of the original, which was somewhat unique in its genre for having an epic world but an intimate story, a simple sci-fi noir tale with existential themes. that said, 2049 does manage to take that starting point to an interesting place with the questions posed by Leto's character to Ford in his "heaven," and Ford's response is heartbreaking and powerful and simple, the way he delivers it and the way the film frames it. "I know what's real." In that, it doesn't matter if Deckard is human or not, or if his relationship with Rachel was constructed or not. What he feels, and what they shared, was real. And Ford manages to bring what feels like the weight of years of pain and doubt and memory and finally resolution to that line. It's beautiful and it really makes me accept how 2049 builds off the original, no matter my other qualms.

Anyways, 80% of 2049 is quite good, and I don't have a problem with the pacing, just the unnecessary plot elements. with some tweaks and excisions, might have even ended up a masterpiece in my mind.

but it still wouldn't have been as good as the original for me. which is no slight on 2049, it's kind of amazing they even managed to make a good sequel all these years later to a movie like Blade Runner. but Blade Runner is a Top 20 all-time movie for me.

 

[Deck Rickard]

Leto was great, like just about everything else in the film. My ONLY issue with the movie was how Luv and her team just let K live after apprehending Deckard. It didn’t make sense not to kill him. But that’s my only nitpick. Other than that, it was a stellar film that was absolutely superior to its predecessor. Like DS said, the film is paced better; it may be much longer than the original but it felt shorter (at least it did to me). I think a lot of it has to do with how much better the action sequences are. They are still fairly sparse, but when they do happen, they are choreographed brilliantly. In the original (and I know this is partially due to the time the movie came out) some of them are just embarrassingly poor, especially in comparison to the beautiful shots that comprise the rest of the film.

And again, this film doesn’t contain a borderline rape scene that is so tone deaf to rape culture that it doesn’t realize it's a borderline rape scene. It reminds me of the Jaime/Cersei rape scene in Game of Thrones that wasn’t intended to be one. The writers and the director of that scene, much like Scott, were so clueless about what consent is that they filmed a rape scene without even realizing it.

 

[TheVileOne]

I like Blade Runner 2049, but yeah, it's not superior to the original IMO. No problem with people who like it more. It's a good sequel and companion piece.