The one element of the sequel which I thought was most interesting was the relation between K and Joi, the AI girlfriend. I would have thought that would have made the most interesting spin off. Maybe not enough action for the studio?
I enjoyed it more than I expected to, but then I wasn’t expecting much so there’s that.
I can’t remember much about it though, although it did make me think of Ryan Gosling as a more interesting actor than I’d assumed, thinking he was just the new Hollywood pretty boy.
1 Like
I lost count of how many times I watched both (including two different version of the original. FWIW, I don’t think Deckard is a replicant - or I just want to believe he isn’t I’m not the most eloquent of people but the bottom line is that I think Villeneuve’s sequel perfectly captured the spirit of the first one, the setting and the emotional depth. The latter is what I found the most important about both films and why I love them.
1 Like
You dont think Deckard was a replicant? I know there is disagreement in interpretation among the people who made it (Scott says yes and the writer says no), but doesnt the sequel pretty much confirm that is how we should understand it? Otherwise it is a pretty huge shift to start using replicants as Blade Runners and have that “now we hunt our own” thing explained.
1 Like
Let’s call it belief rather than opinion - though original did state that replicants should have a short life-span, while Deckard is shown as an aged man in the sequel. His whole arc carries more weight - for me - if he’s human, especially the continuation of his arc with Rachel that we see in 2049. Otherwise, it’s more like any SF story where machines gain sentience and independence.
1 Like
I love the original, probably in one of my top 3 personal favourites.
The 2049 sequel is interesting but doesn’t quite get to the same level. The colour schemes and how they interact with what the scene is about is fascinating but there’s something missing and I can’t quite put my finger on it. It might be Leto but again I can’t quite tell you why.
1 Like
I loved the original film, and liked the 2049 a lot. Not at thd same level, but still an enjoyable film. The original stands out for me. The Vangelis score, the mood, the atmosphere. Everything about it
I cannot get my head around this being produced as a series. There is no creativity, when classics have to be pillaged for ideas. Really fucking annoying. The Hannibal series is a case in point. Clueless lack of originality.
3 Likes
If it matters, it has been driven by Ridley Scott who conceived of it and mapped out the entire plot.
He’s nearly 90 now and has an unhealthy unwillingness to let some of this work go (still wants to do two more of the Prometheus Alien films to finish his story)
1 Like
I suppose that matters a tiny bit.
But the point stands re originality and creativity.
Though maybe we have ran out of imagination 
I’ve been loathe to watch any of his recent films including 2049 in part because I thought he did a really poor job with the Robocop and Total Recall remakes - only to find out today that he didn’t direct either of those movies lol
4 Likes
You got me there for a second, phew!
1 Like
This is incredible
Andrew Garfield has a new film coming out that is being pitched (now) as a Robin Hood genesis story. But it’s actually a story about the peasant’s revolt, something that happened 200 years after Richard the Lionheart (I) fought in the Crusades, the time of Robin. Richard II is even a named character in the film, anchoring it to a completely different time period than the story they are now pretending in the marketing that this is about 
2 Likes
the shittest thing about all that kind of stuff is that its not even needed, it brings nothing. the story is interesting as a stand alone.
another one the same wasthe freddie mercury movie, great movie and all, but why change the facts?..as if Freddies life wasnt interesting enough??? bizarre.
id have loved a movie or series on William Marshal, whos life is more interesting than any hollywood movie ive seen…but you just know theyd be loose with the facts, and for no reason
2 Likes
The Peasant’s Revolt is an event Im somewhat surprised hasnt been mined for content before. I guess its because despite its importance in our history it didnt really produce a character anyone has heard of so there isn’t the hook. So it was cool Greengrass took a swing at it, but what appears is the marketers freaked out at how poorly this was tracking in the US in the run up to release and attempted some ahistorical, imbecilic pivot to try to salvage it. “Poor people with bows and swords speaking in English accents. It’s all Robin Hood isnt it”
3 Likes
i just hope he ends up with the princess at the end, that rich nobleman is really mean.
She’ll boil your pet rabbit in a heartbeat.
The Theranos lady did what she did because she’s a total psychopath.
The thing that review is trying to avoid talking about is something that all outlets who got into Telluride to see were told was embargoed. Yet within a day fucking Variety has already reported on it. It’s going to be impossible I feel to get to this film without having that element spoiled.
1 Like