Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
oscillik

Blade Runner 2049

Recommended Posts

There are so many amazing touches and stuff in this movie. I wonder how long before someone copies the presentation box that the Emanator come in?

 

Also, good article on how likely/realistic the technologies in the movie are in the near future (50 years).

 

https://qz.com/1095377/how-realistic-is-the-incredible-futuristic-technology-in-blade-runner-2049/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Consequence Of  Sound article on the soundtrack. 

 

https://consequenceofsound.net/2017/10/album-review-hans-zimmer-and-benjamin-wallfisch-blade-runner-2049-original-motion-picture-soundtrack/

 

It’s hard to think of a Blade Runner movie without Vangelis. Of course, until now, there’s only been one Blade Runner movie, but Ridley Scott’s 1982 neo-noir sci-fi cult classic is all about aesthetic, and as such, the Greek composer’s work has always been as integral to the film as, say, Syd Mead’s neo-futuristic concepts or Harrison Ford’s stoic portrayal as titular hero, Rick Deckard. The very mention of the film can’t go by without hearing echoes of “Rachel’s Song” or “Blade Runner Blues” or any of the other dozen compositions that add to the dystopian feelings of isolation, uncertainty, or paranoia. So, when it was first announced that Scott and screenwriter Hampton Fancher were (finally) moving ahead with a followup, some 35 years after the original confused American audiences, fans consciously assumed that Vangelis would also be along for the ride. Not exactly.

 

Instead, it was Icelandic mastermind Jóhann Jóhannsson who was scooped up by a Spinner, leaving our trusty Academy Award-winning composer in the rain, only there were no tears to be shed — it was ostensibly by choice. “You can never repeat certain things,” Vangelis told NPR last year of his decision to recuse himself. “It’s only once in lifetime. It’s like doing another Chariots of Fire, it’s impossible.” To his credit, it’s an understandable notion — after all, who in their right mind would want to followup one of the most iconic scores of all time? — but that didn’t stop director Denis Villeneuve from wanting to try. And so, Jóhannsson was surprisingly deactivated late into the process, opening the doors for Hans Zimmer and rising talent Benjamin Wallfisch.

 
As Villeneuve told Al Arabiya, “The thing I will say is that making movies is a laboratory. The movie needed something different, and I needed to go back to something closer to Vangelis. Jóhann and I decided that I will need to go in another direction — that’s what I will say.” Seeing how Blade Runner 2049 is a bonafide masterpiece, we’re not going to argue with his decision, but we will say it was a risky one. Very rare do we ever see a composer successfully take the reins from the celebrated work of a previous icon, even when they’re icons themselves: Danny Elfman did zilch with Brad Fiedel’s industrial tones on 2009’s Terminator: Salvation; Daft Punk pulled the plug on Wendy Carlos’ future sounds on 2010’s Tron: Legacy; and the Force was not with Michael Giacchino’s attempt to capture the intergalactic majesty of John Williams on last year’s Rogue One.
 
But Zimmer’s on another level right now, arguably the most in-demand composer in Hollywood, save for Giacchino, and while he came late into the game on Blade Runner 2049, he’s delivered one hell of a Hail Mary. Alongside Wallfisch, who recently struck gold with Andy Muschietti’s blockbuster phenomenon It, the two found the perfect balance between reverence and ingenuity. Their collaborative score for Villeneuve’s masterful sequel is powerful and elaborate, brimming with all the right sounds that fans need to hear to not only know they’re in the same universe, but one that has since evolved. Because really, that’s what this score sounds like: a total evolution of what Vangelis set in motion way, way back in 1982. It’s louder, it’s gloomier, it’s heavier, and it’s much more expansive, all qualities one might tag with Villeneuve’s breathtaking sequel.
 
Those who’ve grown up worshipping the original score will undoubtedly hear faint echoes of the past, much like the narrative that unfolds on-screen, but it’s hardly as abrasive or on-the-nose as that might read. With the exception of their “Tears in the Rain” redux, the two opt for a more subtle approach to past motifs, one that thrives with hush-hush flourishes sprinkled throughout. It’s as if Zimmer and Wallfisch are sneaking through the abandoned confines of the Tyrell Corporation, and they happened to brush by an ancient machine or two. Instead, you get the idea that Zimmer’s leaning heavily on his recent work for Christopher Nolan’s Dunkirk, capitalizing on that signature bass and those distant strings of his, all of which makes for an essential touch to the hollowed-out world of Blade Runner 2049. But there are also hints of The Dark Knight Rises, what with those haunting Gregorian chants (“Wallace”) and the unforgiving digital storms (“Blade Runner”), and they also set aside enough room for the beauty in the universe, as evidenced by the tranquility of stunning tracks like “Rain” or “Joi” or “Memory”. It’s stunning stuff.
 
Completists will also appreciate the two Elvis Presley songs — “Suspicious Minds” and “Can’t Help Falling in Love” — and the lonely Frank Sinatra classic (“One For My Baby (And One More For The Road)”) that soundtrack arguably the greatest scene in a film of greatest scenes. Hearing those pop up during the listen should send a few shivers down the spine of anyone who’s seen the film, particularly the way they’re wedged between haunting tracks like “Pilot” and “Hijack”. Unfortunately, the whole shebang is somewhat soured by Lauren Daigle’s godawful closing ballad “Almost Human”, but the song itself works like a post-credits sequence — superfluous and extra baggage the majority will otherwise ignore. Instead, due attention should be given to the real closers, the two sweeping 10-minute suites, “Sea Wall” and “Blade Runner”, all the evidence you need to know that Villenueve made the right choice in giving the job to Zimmer and Wallfisch. You’ve never seen a miracle, but you can hear one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a pretty bad movie and I'd love someone to convince me I'm wrong.  there are interesting ingredients:  sound design, some of the lighting and scene stuff, maybe two acting moments.  it's pretty.  it does not make a good movie.

 

it feels sterile, and the soundtrack is boring and apes vangelis hard, but in a boring way.  this is like star wars ep7 all over again where a massive crew of people attempt tirelessly to capture old magic, and instead make lifeless ingredients which amount to an uncomfortable echo.

 

shame on me I guess for re-watching the original last week and re-reading the book too.  at least that was enjoyable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally just watched this tonight, and thought it was excellent. Not gonna make any sweeping statements or anything, and i expect to get shit on for this, but in a number of ways I actually enjoyed it just as much if not slightly more than the original.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a pretty bad movie and I'd love someone to convince me I'm wrong.  there are interesting ingredients:  sound design, some of the lighting and scene stuff, maybe two acting moments.  it's pretty.  it does not make a good movie.

 

it feels sterile, and the soundtrack is boring and apes vangelis hard, but in a boring way.  this is like star wars ep7 all over again where a massive crew of people attempt tirelessly to capture old magic, and instead make lifeless ingredients which amount to an uncomfortable echo.

 

shame on me I guess for re-watching the original last week and re-reading the book too.  at least that was enjoyable

 

 

I'd be interested in hearing what you'd say is a really good movie. I'm not being trite. Genuinely interested because for me, this movie is probably the best I've seen this decade.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

this is a pretty bad movie and I'd love someone to convince me I'm wrong.  there are interesting ingredients:  sound design, some of the lighting and scene stuff, maybe two acting moments.  it's pretty.  it does not make a good movie.

 

it feels sterile, and the soundtrack is boring and apes vangelis hard, but in a boring way.  this is like star wars ep7 all over again where a massive crew of people attempt tirelessly to capture old magic, and instead make lifeless ingredients which amount to an uncomfortable echo.

 

shame on me I guess for re-watching the original last week and re-reading the book too.  at least that was enjoyable

 

 

I'd be interested in hearing what you'd say is a really good movie. I'm not being trite. Genuinely interested because for me, this movie is probably the best I've seen this decade.

 

 

Same here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is a pretty bad movie and I'd love someone to convince me I'm wrong.  there are interesting ingredients:  sound design, some of the lighting and scene stuff, maybe two acting moments.  it's pretty.  it does not make a good movie.

 

it feels sterile, and the soundtrack is boring and apes vangelis hard, but in a boring way.  this is like star wars ep7 all over again where a massive crew of people attempt tirelessly to capture old magic, and instead make lifeless ingredients which amount to an uncomfortable echo.

 

shame on me I guess for re-watching the original last week and re-reading the book too.  at least that was enjoyable

The soundtrack is generally weak and does ape Vangelis, and often in a boring way.

 

It was nothing like Star Wars Ep7 in the ways you described or really in any ways except it was a sequel to a movie from years ago. Comparing the two isn't much more useful than comparing BR2049 to Scooby Doo. IMHO, of course. Describing SW as having 'that old magic' is a little worrying to me in regards to your opinion, though ;)

 

Yeah, the PKD book is okay, but honestly I'd prefer watching either of the BR movies generally. A lot more mood in both, where the book is mired by its kitschy ideas. The BR's version of that 'universe' is much more interesting to visit imo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

this is a pretty bad movie and I'd love someone to convince me I'm wrong. there are interesting ingredients: sound design, some of the lighting and scene stuff, maybe two acting moments. it's pretty. it does not make a good movie.

 

it feels sterile, and the soundtrack is boring and apes vangelis hard, but in a boring way. this is like star wars ep7 all over again where a massive crew of people attempt tirelessly to capture old magic, and instead make lifeless ingredients which amount to an uncomfortable echo.

 

shame on me I guess for re-watching the original last week and re-reading the book too. at least that was enjoyable

 

I'd be interested in hearing what you'd say is a really good movie. I'm not being trite. Genuinely interested because for me, this movie is probably the best I've seen this decade.

I really liked it but best film of the decade?! It's not even the best I've seen this month! (mother!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

that 150 mil budget figure doesn't cover marketing costs which can be pretty huge, that's why it's seen as a failure i guess.

 

I read before that the budget was 150-185 mil, but everywhere I read now says 150 only? I imagine that 185 included marketing etc.

 

Or maybe that figure was just an estimate and the 150 is known to be actual now?

 

 

 

I wanna say that I've heard before that marketing is figured in to overall budgets generally, but I certainly could be misremembering or just plain wrong. The same point still stands even if the numbers are off, a lot of shit I've seen over the years is that if a film doesn't make like 2-10 times what was spent on it, it ain't worth it to many investors or producers or whoever. Just always struck me as strange.

 

 

that 150 mil budget figure doesn't cover marketing costs which can be pretty huge, that's why it's seen as a failure i guess.

 

also, half of the budget was just ford's salary probably.

 

 

Bladerunner 2049 will undoubtedly make its money back eventually. The problem is that studios and investors want that money now, not two or three years down the road.

 

When you consider how Hollywood works now - endless comic book movies, (conveniently) expanded universes for every concievable intellectual property, millions flocking to see an emoji movie, it's nothing sort of a miracle in itself that Blade Runner 2049 ever got made and turned out to be so magnificent. 

 

 

thats a really good point, it is something totally extraordinary for our current conditions in hollywood, and actually makes me optimistic that at least great art can still survive in the major studios in the right circumstances. i have to say i was left with a sense of wonder and awe when the credits started, with the feeling of being swept off my feet and thinking "what did i just experience??... and at a popular harkins theater in my city's college town of all places?? with ryan gossling as the star... It didn't feel quite real. we're very privileged to be able to see something like this in a theater in 2017. of course blade runner is one of a kind, and a unique example of sci fi that's done so tastefully and artistically and with a cult following, but with nothing indie or small time about it. despite any shortcomings people have mentioned (and i kind of agree with the aspect of the forgettable villain roles like the one jared leto played and maybe how the score was holding back quite a bit musically)- however regarding the soundtrack, i think it was perfectly fitting. it would seem a little bit pretentious and wouldnt do the franchise justice imo to come up with new musical themes and motifs. instead, it paid homage to the original by revisiting some of the key moments in a beautiful and simple manner (toward the end) and relied more on the atmospheres and sound design, keeping it melodically minimal. and man, those pitch bending synth riffs... they were like screaming banshees reverberating past endless reservoirs and alleyways of the city's edges. almost chilling. just amazing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just got home after a 6 hour bike ride and I booked myself a ticket for this tomorrow at waterloo Imax at 10.30 am (why did I do that?), and I just can't be fucking arsed with going. I just might go down the pub instead...Everyone I know reckons its terrible lol (but then they have major awful tastes in music and film.....)

 

Major dilemma incoming

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

go see it ffs

or i'll have your ticket

 

 

ffs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah do it.. i was on the fence myself as i hadnt had dinner beforehand and didnt want nachos or popcorn to be my only options so i grabbed some food nearby. the order was taking forever and was already missing the previews and was considering seeing something that started a little later so i didn't have to rush eating. but i went for it anyway im glad i did. totally worth it--indigestion and all! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*pounds chest with fists like a fucking savage gorilla!!!*

Edited by beerwolf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*pounds chest with fists like a fucking savage gorilla!!!*

I didn't see the word "savage" and just had images of a gorilla in rape mode

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i went to see it last night and i rather liked it. wasn't expecting to feel Ryan Gosling in the role, but hes grown on me, and he did a good job.

 

i liked the casting of all the cast, including Jared Leto who did a nice turn of channeling Tyrell I think. Sylvia Hoas was great! Non plussed by Ana de Armas who came over a little too anime for me, but it worked as part of the aesthetic. Taling of which I liked but wasn't quite grimy enough for me, not sure about the Kubrickian Las Vegas girls.

 

Anyway, as a huge fan of the original I'm bound to be hard to please. I'm going to rewatch it and think about it more... 7.5/10

   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

it worked as part of the aesthetic.

I personally think the actors work within the confines of their characters all was solid when viewed as such, though some actors did stand out, Sylvia Hoeks in particular, as you pointed out.

 

 

 

BUT OKAY

 

so I have two things:

 

1) was anyone else as distracted as me by Goslings fucked up eyes? One is like a half inch lower than the other and I couldn't stop staring at it.

 

2) what kind of dog did Deckard have? Not like, was it real or not like they asked (lovely little exchange there symbolizing the Deckard-himself-replicant? question), but what breed of dog was it? It looked lovely and friendly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

it worked as part of the aesthetic.

I personally think the actors work within the confines of their characters all was solid when viewed as such, though some actors did stand out, Sylvia Hoeks in particular, as you pointed out.

 

 

 

BUT OKAY

 

so I have two things:

 

1) was anyone else as distracted as me by Goslings fucked up eyes? One is like a half inch lower than the other and I couldn't stop staring at it.

 

2) what kind of dog did Deckard have? Not like, was it real or not like they asked (lovely little exchange there symbolizing the Deckard-himself-replicant? question), but what breed of dog was it? It looked lovely and friendly.

Gozzla's eyes are also too close together, which means he's inherently untrustworthy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

it worked as part of the aesthetic.

I personally think the actors work within the confines of their characters all was solid when viewed as such, though some actors did stand out, Sylvia Hoeks in particular, as you pointed out.

 

 

 

BUT OKAY

 

so I have two things:

 

1) was anyone else as distracted as me by Goslings fucked up eyes? One is like a half inch lower than the other and I couldn't stop staring at it.

 

2) what kind of dog did Deckard have? Not like, was it real or not like they asked (lovely little exchange there symbolizing the Deckard-himself-replicant? question), but what breed of dog was it? It looked lovely and friendly.

 

 

 

Like Deckard said, "Why don't you ask him?"  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

maybe I´m late with this post but i havent seen one so i post it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just seen it. Kinda liked it. Most of all because of the ambition. My biggest gripe with it is actually kind of stupid. It's that it tries too hard to be a blade runner movie. Again, stupid, I know. But it kept me from viewing the movie as it is. And not only did it continuously ask to be compared with the original, imo. It also asked to be compared with other influences. Like Kubrick. Couldn't help but think that Villeneuve's ambition was to attempt to combine the Blade Runner world with Kubricks cinematography.

 

Lots of craftsmanship went into it, but in the end I mostly wished Villeneuve put his ambitions in creating something new instead of remixing the past.

 

Leto wasn't as bad as I feared. And Hoeks was wonderful, like already said. Gosling was meh, but in a way which suited the role. Ford was mostly being Ford, imo. 

 

I missed Rutger Hauer, I guess. :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never seen Gosling in a movie I liked before, but I thought he was perfect for the part here. And yeah, Hoeks did an amazing job, I felt plenty of compassion towards a character that could have been pure evil in someone else's hands.

 

 

Despite the protracted drowning scene I even found myself wanting to believe she wasn't 100% definitely dead yet.

 

 

Probably going to watch this at least a third time before it disappears out of rotation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Never seen Gosling in a movie I liked before

Have you seen him in Drive?

Edited by xox

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Go see go see!

Edited by Echolalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...