Blade Runner 2049. Who else is seeing it in theaters? And it's reviewing well!

I can't wait to see it in theaters. I think I'm going to go to a Dolby Cinema theater to watch it, which will be the first time (I didn't do it with Alien: Covenant). I don't know how many people have Dolby Cinema; I don't think it's common in many theaters yet, but the one near my house has one. It's arguably better than IMAX, though I don't know. Whatever the most immersive experience gives me, I want to do that with Blade Runner 2049. I don't go to theaters much, but this is one of those exceptions. Anyway, the film is now getting reviews, and it seems it's getting a lot of praise. I won't post the reviews here since you can check it out on your own, but it's cool to see it gaining a lot of praise. I just wanted to make this to gather who else here is really excited for the film.

---

To you that have seen the film, please don't spoil anything in this thread. I thank you guys for not doing that. If you want to do that, make a new thread about it so everyone can talk about the story there. If one isn't made before I see it, I'll probably make one. That'll probably be next week at some point.

I'll be going but I hope they keep away from the (stupid) Deckard is a replicant nonsense.

@sammo21: I could be misinterpreting it, but in the interviews, they made it seem like that was something they didn't want to reveal since it's an important thing to and for fans to think about.

I'll take those with a grain of salt. The director's other movies reviewed very well too, and I found most of them kind of bland. Especially Arrival. I'm hopeful, though.

Very curious, I haven't watched a movie since mad max was in theaters. They recently build what is supposed to be one of the sickest movietheaters in europe very close to my house, seems like a good excuse to finally go check it out haha.

Edit: looked it up, they apparently use laser projection and dolby atmos. Is that the same as what you call a Dolby cinema NTM?

@lestephan: Yeah, it's Dolby Cinema at AMC. And yes, it uses Dolby Atmos and laser projection. Here, this may be the video you watched, but I'll post it if not. Last time I checked, I found out that it's not widely in use in many theaters. I actually made a thread about this specific thing around the time Alien: Covenant came out. I'll post two videos.

Blade Runner is one of my favourite movies and yeah 2049 is getting good reviews but I can't think of many movies that need a sequel less than the original Blade Runner. The end is supposed to be ambiguous. I don't need more story after that, I've crafted my own, I know what Deckard is or isn't. I'm pretty sure that I don't ever want to see this movie but I'm pretty conflicted about this.

@picky_bugger: Like said, I don't think the new film will touch and tarnish what made the originals end ambiguous (well, other than what happened to Deckard). I also hear this film itself will also bring up many things for the audience to think about like the first did. For me, when it comes to a sequel, I loved that world, so when a fiction brings about a world that I am interested in, I want to see more of it. The whole ambiguity of things isn't enough for me not to want to be in that world again with a new story. The same goes for The Last of Us which many people feel the same about.

@ntm The world absolutely is compelling; I don't intend on watching any of the trailers but any idea how that holds up in the new movie? Have they done the standard thing of updating all the technology, screens etc that most sequels and even prequels do (I'm looking at you Deux Ex HR). It seems like a real hard job to capture the essence of a fictional world without seeming like a poor facsimile. I guess for me I've got that world, I've seen it, show me something new. If the original story can be self contained then I don't need sequels. Never played The Last of Us but I expect I'd feel the opposite that you do.

@picky_bugger: If you're asking me if it does the thing that recent Star Trek does, where it looks more futuristic than the originals, and it makes little sense, then no. They keep everything, it's just that the world is a bit worse off climate-wise, and they explore the setting just out of the bounds of the city. They even keep all the old advertising, like Atari and Pan Am. The Spinners are the same looking vehicles. The style of the inhabitants of Los Angelas is very similar. The lighting is similar too, which I hear is a masterpiece. Not sure if that was the correct answer to your question, but if it's about how true it is staying to the original, it's very close. From what I understand, many are saying that the sequel works really well with the first, more of a continuation than a straight up sequel. People that even said the same thing you did are feeling great about the sequel. That said, I'm not here to change your mind, I understand your viewpoint although I would recommend looking into it more before judging if it's not for you, because you may miss out. I don't know. And... The Last of Us is great.

Yeah, that's exactly what I meant, sorry I wasn't clear. That does sound good and true to the original, I will definitely look into it a bit more as I may have rushed into my viewpoint a bit too quickly. Still not sure the movie needs to exist but we'll see.

Only reason I haven't played Last of us is because I've not had a console of my own since the PS2 so if they bring it out on that I may give it a go.

Forget Deckard being a replicant, that vacant stare of Ryan Gosling means I'm going to assume he is one unless the movie prove's otherwise.

@picky_bugger: That said, while the style is very much there from what I read and have seen, you can expect differences. I mean, realistically, technology does advance in thirty years. I don't know if anyone should take anyone's word on something, even a consensus, but so far like I said the consensus is just that the film works on its own, but is also the best possible sequel you can ask for. I don't generally read GameSpot film reviews, but here's what it said about the topic of not wanting a sequel. I feel like this basically sums up the consensus so far.

"The original Blade Runner is one of those rare sci-fi films that comes along once in a generation, and there are certainly fans who could never be satisfied by any follow-up, no matter how respectful of the original, nuanced in its advancements, or intelligently crafted it may be. It's natural to be wary when Hollywood sets its sights on yet another classic, given how many of its reboots, reprisals, and re-imaginings come stillborn into the world as limp, lifeless cash-grabs.

But whether it was needed or not, Blade Runner 2049 is as close to a perfect sequel as has ever existed, a phenomenal return to the world created by Philip K. Dick and Ridley Scott, the masterpiece result of a thousand expert minds making every right call as they worked toward a singular goal over the course of many years: simply to do this gargantuan thing justice. Needless to say, they succeeded--and then some."

@ntm: I'm certainly more interested now, will see what Mark Kermode has to say about it on Friday.

@ezekiel: I agree with Arrival being bland. Have you by any chance seen Enemy? A strange film that I still don't know what to think of.

I am very excited to see Blade Runner 2049 and hope it is really great! It's still hard for me to believe that we're getting big budget sequel to Blade Runner. We live in wondrous times when it comes to entertainment.

Has anyone seen the shorts they have been releasing for Blade Runner 2049? They're actually surprisingly good. They don't have spoilers with regards to the main plot. They just introduce us to some of the new characters. Good stuff.

I tried one, but then skimmed through out of boredom and just stopped. I already regret seeing so much of the movie. I wish I knew nothing about it.

No. I've seen Sicario, Arrival, Prisoners and the one in the Middle East (and Canada) with the ridiculous plot twist.

@ezekiel: I don't think those shorts will be in the movie if that is what you are referring to.

I don't like the original Blade Runner but I'm mega hyped for this because it's from one of the best directors of our time.

Not surprised to see the glowing praise.

I have to agree with @picky_bugger when it comes to movies that don't need sequels. My only hope is that it has nothing to do with the original, just in the same universe. And I always get skeptical of near perfect reviews because it normally means that it didn't offend anyone, as in it's so bland that it appeals to everyone, like it's diluted (hopefully that made sense lol).

Also I thought it was obvious Deckard is a replicant... hmph!

I haven't been to a theatre in over a decade and this movie will not be the one to break the streak.

Never seen the original but always heard of the legacy due to cultural osmosis, but the trailers for this new movie have looked AMAZING to me so to hear that generally speaking it’s a great movie is exciting.

Local area theater has a double feature showing the original and the new movie back to back, so I’m basically gonna do that with a buddy.

I'm gonna watch it. I hope its good, but if its not who gives a fuck? The original is still there. It didn't need a sequel and, because it was so good on its own, it doesn't really need the sequel to be good. Blade Runner will always be Blade Runner, the same as Alien will always be Alien, Terminator will always be Terminator, no matter how many sequels they churn out.

Plus that prequel anime is dope as fuck, so we'll always have that.

Can this movie overcome Jared Leto?

Of course! Can't wait.

Man, premium format theaters, just spent $16 to see Kingsmen 2 in Cineplex's AVX because it was the showtime I wanted. Not a fan. I just want to see a movie, I don't want another excuse to charge me more. I also hate reserved seating. I want to pick my seat in the theatre, not off some screen. I saw Cloud Atlas in an AVX and it had a big ear shaped smudge on the screen for the whole movie. Probably should have complained, but... eh.

Yeah, I know. I still wish I didn't know ANYTHING about this movie. That's how I watch most of my movies.

Depends on the version of the film. I prefer the Workprint, for a few reasons. In that version, there is no unicorn dream. Deckard's character arc and Batty's death have more meaning if he's not a replicant. He becomes sympathetic to the replicants and the replicants are shown to be human. If he's a replicant, why is he not as strong or fast as the others? Why would the police scheme with Tyrell and employ a replicant while keeping the truth from him? From Deckard's first conversation with his boss, I never got the slightest impression that he was being deceitful. Why would they hire a replicant who doesn't like his job and has to be pulled out of retirement? Ridley Scott's half-baked twist is a twist for the sake of a twist. Keeping him human gives us a connection.

Blade Runner's my favorite movie, so yeah I'm seeing it on a Thursday showing (it's at 7:05 pm weirdly enough). I can't say I have huge expectations for it though. None of the trailers have really wowed me, so I'm cautiously optimistic. Denis Villeneuve is probably my favorite current director right now and it's always a treat to see Roger Deakins shoot a film, so at least I know it's going to be super pretty. Hopefully, the story holds up.

Also, no matter how many unicorn dreams you insert into the movie, Deckard will always be human to me. It makes for a better movie and character arc in my opinion, and if he is a replicant he is the worst replicant ever.

@ezekiel: In my opinion, the ambiguity of him maybe/maybe not being a replicant is to really hammer home "you're treating these people as slaves, and turns out you're one of them!" He doesn't really need to be one, just think that he could be. The whole movie has a very anti-corporate, punk-rock, "don't be a slave to the system" message. To me at least, it's less about the plot and more about the theme. To answer some of your questions though, I always assumed he was of the "new" generation of replicants like the girl was, maybe they aren't extra strong and fast? Also they have implanted memories so he could've just been activated at the beginning of the movie with false memories. His whole relationship with the other detective is so weird and standoff-ish, along with him always creating the origami. Also I believe he said at the end that Deckard did a "man's" job. Maybe I'm digging too deep.

Hey that's why this movie is still loved today!

Planning to see it via IMAX. Was relieved to it not being IMAX 3D at least.

I can see why people would find him annoying, but he is a good actor. If Requiem for a Dream, Fight Club, and Dallas Buyers Club can be great with him, I don't see why this couldn't be. I'm sure a lot of rich/famous people are pretentious and annoying. I've heard worse things about other actors, like Bruce Willis, and that was coming from people who've worked with him like Kevin Smith and Stallone.

I'll probably see this in the theater. I usually go the week after stuff opens, not the first weekend, since it'll be less people so less likely to be annoyed. I like the director (even though I think he gets a little overrated) and the short films have been good. Hopefully the trailer didn't foreshadow or reveal too much, since that made it look like a lot of people are replicants and most humans are really underground with Morgan from The Walking Dead (a twist similar to Oblivion).

@ripelivejam: I hear he's in it about as much as Tyrell was in the first.

@tom_omb: In my theater, one way or another you have to pick off a screen now, either on the internet (which I've never done), but also when you get there, which was new to me. I'm going to check before I go if the seats are taken, and then just go there and select it if I can.

@assumedkilla: I really should have just read all the comments first before posting... Ha. And yeah, that's what I'm going to do. There's going to be too many people, and from what I checked, all the seats in my theater will be taken on the first few days of the film. I'll be going on a Monday or Thursday the week after, unfortunately. I just hope to keep away from spoilers.

@tom_omb said:

I'd rather pick my seat off a screen at the counter before I pay, which is how it's done in my cinema. I don't wanna walk into the auditorium and discover all the good seats are taken. I may go on the Tuesday after next. Tickets are only five dollars on Tuesdays.

Should I watch Blade Runner?

Got imax (2D) tickets for this Thursday here in London. Incredible terrified. Blade Runner and Twin Peaks are pretty much my two favourite things. So after an incredible season 3 of Twin Peaks and after seeing how well 2049 is reviewing I'm kinda starting to think. You know what, it might actually, be, good, right?

Anyway I'm very into Denis Villeneuve's other films, especially Sicario and Arrival, and Roger Deakins shooting a big budget sci fi spectacle is exciting in and of itself. So yeah, deffo watching it, although I'm really fucking scared.

@ezekiel: Yeah, I get why people who don't usually get to the theatre crazy early like I do would like assigned seating. I usually have an empty theatre to pick from.

@frodobaggins: If you want to. It has a great cyberpunk world, fantastic sound design, and interesting story. I also think the film is one of those films that you can get a different reaction from it with multiple viewings. I would say if you want a fast-paced action movie, Blade Runner is not that. If you want to potentially get sucked into its dystopian world, watch it.

@ezekiel: Yes, that's what I mean. It has to be chosen on a screen one way or another (online for a reservation, or there). The last time I went (before Alien: Covenant), when I went to see Star Wars: Rogue One, it was still about buying the ticket where you give cash or use a card, and they hand you the ticket through the glass. Now, you go inside the entrance instead of standing outside to get a ticket and use a touch screen to pick where you want to sit. I don't plan on using the online reservation, I've never actually done that, but I do plan to check it for the day I plan on going so I know before we even get there what seats have been taken.

Seeing this in a presser on Thursday. Having under 24 hours to write an essay about it will probably be tough. I'm lukewarm on the original but I'm also lukewarm towards Villeneuve. Going into this expecting some cool shit though, that dude was born to make single-minded ponderous long films about existentialist themes with gorgeous visuals and hey, you know, that's Dick and Blade Runner for you.

I read Richard Roeper's review, and he basically talked about this subject like it's made clear as to what he is and isn't early on. The answer was spoiled for me (kind of), considering the trailers don't give any indication either way. It's not what you think I guess.

---

The soundtrack is out now. I listened to it on YouTube, and I can't say that I love it right now. It's just kind of plain, but I'm hoping it's something that you can't really understand if you listen to it without the film.

It's 2 hours and 45 minutes. Add on 30 minutes of trailers, and at least another 30 minutes of getting there early for good seats and you're looking at a 4 hour commitment for a movie.

No thanks.

I've skipped all the comments in this thread just in case

I'll be going to the 7:45 showing tomorrow night. Luckily my theater has reserved seating so i won't have to get there super early for seats. I don't expect to be out before 11:15. Trailers and what not will definitely push it later.

@sammo21: He (The director) said that he thought it was kind of up for discussio if he was a replicant. So i think they might leave that ambigious, judging by that and his other movies.

@cheappoison: I really hope so. I personally think Deckard being a replicant in Blade Runner literally ruins that film and makes it rather pointless.

Holy crap, this movie is almost 3 hours long. I have to hold it in for 2 hour movies, I better not hydrate myself tomorrow.

Just came home from watching it, and I don't really know what to think of it. It's by no means a bad movie, but I'm having a hard time seeing myself calling it good movie as well. It's very much a "you gotta be into it" thing. It wears Bladerunner as a thick, thick coat (although they seem to have mostly forgotten about the punk part), but that's also all it is. The story is super minimal for a 3 hour movie and while it does connect to the universe of the original it felt like it didn't really play with the IP or the genre. I dunno, maybe it's just too long since I watched the original and this is exactly what you'd want if you're a big fan, but to me it came off as a mediocre movie you could probably edit down to 1,5 hours if it wasn't so obsessed about establishing itself as being Bladerunner.

Worth seeing if you've never watched the original? Trying to decide if I want to take my wife, but if the tone and pacing is anything like the first, AND it ties in closely, then I know she's going to be bored.

@ichthy: If you haven't seen the original then ye I'd say it's very likely you'll be quite bored.

Just saw it and I think it might be better than the original.