Without spoiling story, what did you think of Blade Runner 2049?

I made a few threads about Blade Runner 2049 before it was released, fully intending on discussing it soon after making them, but I ended up not seeing it in theaters, unfortunately. I was disappointed that I didn't do that, but I got excited because it was releasing relatively soon after digitally, so now you can buy it to watch it at home... I didn't do that either because while I intended on doing that, a few days prior (which was Christmas Eve) my brother told me he got me the movie on Blu Ray, which comes out later this month. Now I have to wait again, but I'm super excited and I wanted to gather your opinions on specific aspects which I'll put in bullet points below.

• Story
• Sound design
• Setting/Atmosphere (How did the setting make you feel? Were you immersed in it?)
• Characters
• Dialogue to action ratio (Was there a lot of talking and not a lot of action; did that matter to you? What was the quality of action scenes?)

What did you think of those aspects? If you can, put a number from one to five on each, five being the best quality, with zero being the worst. I'd also like to know if you liked, disliked, or even saw the original. Again though, please don't spoil it.

---

Edit 1/16/2018 - I saw the movie. I liked it, but it wasn't as good as I had hoped and not as interesting as the first in any respect. That said, again, I liked it and I'll probably watch it again soon. Although I am not expecting a sequel, nor did this film necessarily make it seem like there'll be a sequel, it seems like there could be. I am a little disappointed in the story, it seemed simple and the reveal later in the movie as to who is who wasn't really effective to me since we don't really get to know a specific character. People say it was long, but I didn't really feel that, and I honestly wanted more.

I liked the setting, but unfortunately looking at Google images for wallpaper or watching the trailers since its release culminated in pretty much showing every setting that the movie had to offer. It also didn't enrapture me like the first. The sound design was fine, but it was mostly the sound of vehicles or the sound of 'vrooming' music. They don't spend a lot of time in the city compared to the first. Like the story depicts, it felt more barren than the first, less lively. I don't know, the movie, at least to me, doesn't really bring in any big questions worth asking after the movie is over so it's not one that permeates my mind in that way so I'm a little disappointed by that. I'm saying a lot of negative aspects about it mainly because I expected more, but I really did like it overall.

It's not as effective in any respect as the first though. I'm just glad that the dog lived. It feels so late now, but I'm going to go listen to some spoilercasts that I wanted to listen to before the movie even came out.

Edit - Seems people thought about the film a little deeper than me in some ways. It's interesting to hear and definitely something that helps make the movie more special. Just the way people can interpret different things out of it. I also need to watch it again because I feel like I didn't hear every bit of dialogue. I generally watch films when I'm on my own with subtitles, and I usually like to do it when I can't hear anything else and no one is bothering me, but that wasn't the case when I just watched it. Yeah, I'm going to watch it again shortly. Listening to people talk about it makes me excited to watch it again this soon after already seeing it.

I can't do that without the need to go into a lot of detail & spoilers.

Might sound vague, but the less you know, the better it's going to be.

Story 4/5 : A thought provoking story that challenges viewers what to feel rather than spoon feeding it to them. Get ready to buckle the heck up.

Sound Design 4/5 : This is where I feel you completely missed out by not seeing it in the theater. The soundtrack alone was worth hearing it in theaters and combined with the sound design, everything just feels ominous and gut punching. From the movies that I watched this year I would put this right behind Dunkirk in terms of best sound design.

Setting/Atmosphere 5/5: About as immersive I'd say as the original. Probably even better given that a lot of the sets and scenes were really impressive to look at. A visual feast for the eyes with detail and it definitely sucks you in.

Characters 3/5 : I know most are going to argue that the characters are the weakest part of the film and I would agree, but I still enjoyed their parts. I would have loved to see more characters get fleshed out or have more agency.

Dialogue to action ratio (?): Not really sure how to even begin rating this? There is definitely more dialogue and long panning shots in this than there are action scenes, which I thought was fine. I'd rather see what the director is trying to convey visually and narratively than having a 30 minute slug fest between CGI blobs. When the action scenes do happen, it takes little effort to see what's going on, which is a blessing because they tend to happen fast. One of them blew me away and another left me thinking it could have been cut out completely despite visually being really cool.

This is easily one of my favorite movies of the year and I loved the original for it's moody setting, soundtrack, and also thought provoking story. I wanted to watch it at least one more time in theaters, but I was busy with classes. So I'm with you on eagerly waiting for the blu-ray release.

I found the soundtrack to be a bit of a bummer compared to the original or what probably could've been had they not axed Jóhann Jóhannsson from the project. If you've heard the Interstellar soundtrack and understand that it was referencing Bach's BVW 639 (and its use in Tarkovsky's Solaris in particular), Hans Zimmer basically does the same "minimalist" take of Vangelis' original Blade Runner score in 2049. Not bad, but kinda uninspired and bland, especially considering it feels like he's just feeding someone elses work into a formula he's come up with.

But the actual sound design - the sounds of the world themselves were great.

Visually it was spectacular, story wise it had some fantastic high points and some low points, the latter mostly when it tried to tie directly back to the original in contrived ways. Either way, it was way better than what a sequel to Blade Runner made in 2017 should've been.

As for "dialogue to action ratio", if you've seen and enjoyed the pace of the original Blade Runner, you can basically expect the same from this one. I'd say both movies are far more about their worlds than the protagonists or the actual plot, and like the original, there are lots of scenes that are kinda all about just letting you slowly observe the world they've built.

@fisk0: Yeah, I've listened to the soundtrack on YouTube, and it sounds a little disappointing. It sounds okay, but nowhere near as good or distinct as Vangelis' music in the original. I want to give it the benefit of the doubt because sometimes it being mixed with the thing on the screen can help. On a side note, Interstellar's soundtrack by Zimmer wasn't great, in my opinion. There was only one good song. Zimmer in the last few years seems to be getting a lot of work, and the originality of the music has been hurting. I don't know, I just know that early 2000's and prior his music in many films were fantastic. That said, The Dark Knight soundtracks are phenomenal to me. Glad to hear the sound design of the world is great.

@whitestripes09: Yeah, theater sound is nice, but my home theater system should suffice. I didn't want to see the film in a normal theater though (it had to be Dolby Cinema) which has better sound and better projectors. That coupled with the fact it cost more and I wanted to have my family go too, but couldn't find the time nixed that idea. Also in response to fisk0 about the dialogue/action ratio. I loved the first Blade Runner just fine, but I was still curious as to how much action there was and how good it was. It's not a dealbreaker one way or another (well, as long as it's done well enough). I am most excited about the film and loved the idea of a sequel because I want to experience that world again. The story and characters are icing on the cake if you will.

My favorite movie of the year. Saw it 3 times in the theater. For reference the last movie I saw more than once in a theater was The Fellowship of the Ring. Just one of the most complete packages I seen when it comes to world building.

Story: 4 It takes the long road to get where it's going, but in doing so, it allows itself to really soak itself in Futuriffic tone. The group of friends I saw it with also enjoyed where it decides to go, but in a quieter moment, one of my friends wondered if it even needed to be a sequel to Blade Runner. A few gentle nips and tucks and it would still be a pretty great sci fi standalone film. The material between the two films is worthwhile, at least to me. Usually my inner editor gets restless when films drag on, and I'm already wishing to cut scenes out, but even as it nears three hours, it never triggered that for me.

Sound Design: 5 I work with a lot of crude sound mixing tangentially in post production, so a smooth, deeply atmospheric mix is always appreciated. I'm never sure if that will translate over from the theatrical sound mix to whatever your home setup is, but at the very least, if you don't have a good sound system, maybe see if you can use headphones.

Setting: 5 Someone did a really deep dive into the original Blade Runner, into the real minutiae like the fonts used for magazines no one really sees up close (if I can find the link, I'll post it). It was a wonderful summary to the amount of detail that the sets needed to feel like a lived-in space. I'm happy to say that 2049 continues this with all kinds of new detail that I'd imagine might jump out to you on rewatches. Oh, also, without spoiling anything, there's more variety in the environments that you might not expect.

Characters: 3 If anything, this is where I feel is the film's weakest area. I can't really blame the actors, as some of their roles are intentionally cipher-like. We're not supposed to see the rich inner lives, if any, of replicants, only hints, etchings, of something deeper going on with them.

D2A: 5 talkies to 1 Shooties? I guess? This is a weird thing to rate. Yes, there's probably more talking than foightin', but I'd posit that even in the most basic of scenes, like a return home to a cooked dinner, the audience is getting both barrels of The Future at point blank, engaging us even if it is just a normal post-shift moment. It didn't feel dull. We do get a pretty good breakdown on all the various hazards there are for blade running, as well as some sudden reminders that a few of these characters are built just for doin' dirt.

So yeah, I really liked it. And thinking about it, I ought to try and track down that Making Of book that came out.

it's one of the best movies of 2017

Is 2049 your guys' favorite Denis Villeneuve film? I was going to ask if it was the best one, but that's a little different, but you can also answer that too I guess. I've seen Sicario, Arrival and bits and pieces of Prisoners. I wouldn't say I loved any of them, but they were well made.

Loved it. Might be the greatest sequel of all time in my eyes. Denis Villeneuve is the most interesting director working right now for me. Sicario is god-tier.

I haven't seen Prisoners, but of everything else of Villeneuve's, I'd probably put it on top, if only for the additional Oh Thank God He Didn't Mess That Up bonus points it earns.

Lately when thinking about 2049. I have come to realize I probably like it more than the original. Which is saying a lot, because I LOVE Blade Runner. It expands and builds on the original in ways that makes it feel more fully realized. Its absolutely gorgeous, and by that alone I would love it. But I think the story is superb too, and Gosling is amazing. Like I expected the movie to nosedive eventually, but it had me so excited all the way until the credits. The culminating scene is masterfully shot and choreographed.

As for Villeneuve, I really think he is proving again and again just how good of a director he is. Basically I will probably see any movie that he directs from now on. Aside from Arrival which I really didn't like. Prisoners/Enemy/Sicaro all I adore. 2049 will probably be his best to me though.

Without spoiling the story I thought it was artsy as fuck, in a good way, and a little too long.

Whether it's the continuation that Blade Runner didn't need? I dunno. It does feel different despite their best efforts to make it appear the same. The story is much worse, but overall it was a really great cinematic experience - definitely one of those movies that gains a ton from being seen in an IMAX theater as opposed to on a home TV, or worse yet a laptop or something.

It's not as good as the original for several key reasons (too long, not as strong thematically, weaker characters) but I still think it's a very good film, up there for best of last year with Dunkirk and Thor3 imo

I'm also not particularly a fan of Villneuve's style but whatever he did, I ended up liking it a whole lot more than Arrival (the only other film of his I've seen)

This movie's going to be a cult classic for sure, because I really doubt it did so well in the box office

My wife and I were able to squeeze this in just before it left theaters, and WOW am I ever glad we did. The cinematography is unbelievably good, the acting is by and large exceptional, and I thought the story was gripping and very well executed. It's actually one of the few movies I saw last year that made me feel like there was still hope for grand, sweeping, big-budget cinema (I get that there will always be good indie shit to get by on) beyond the endless iteration of superherodom and Star Wars.

It's one of the few films from 2017 that I actually want to watch more than once.

It's visually stunning and has a lot of very strong moments. As a whole it didn't come together quite as well as I wanted it to, but some sequences are downright breathtaking. I heartily recommend it if you can see it on a big screen with good sound.

@giantstalker: at least Harrison ford isnt slightly rapey in this one

I thought it was a very good movie and it made me think quite a bit. One of the best movies I've seen in 2017.

Can say now that it was the best movie i've seen thisprevious year.

• Story - 3,5/5 It wasn't too complicated, and had a decent plot twist. But it's the presentation and how it was narrated that bought me.

• Sound design - 3,5/5 If you mean the sound design, it was good, though i could only say that after seeing in 2nd time. The theather i've seen it first time had set up their sound way too loud, which added to some already deliberately loud scenes in the movie. If you mean the music, though... What fisk0 said:

  @fisk0 said:

  I found the soundtrack to be a bit of a bummer compared to the original or what probably could've been had they not axed Jóhann Jóhannsson from the project. If you've heard the Interstellar soundtrack and understand that it was referencing Bach's BVW 639 (and its use in Tarkovsky's Solaris in particular), Hans Zimmer basically does the same "minimalist" take of Vangelis' original Blade Runner score in 2049. Not bad, but kinda uninspired and bland, especially considering it feels like he's just feeding someone elses work into a formula he's come up with.

  Zimmer have done his job, and that's about it. It works in the movie, but doubt i will be listening to the OST like i did with Vangelis' work.

• Setting/Atmosphere (How did the setting make you feel? Were you immersed in it?) - 5/5 It made me feel very immersed. It builds upon what was shown in the original Blade Runner, and does it beautifully - it's a world that is both mesmerizing, and terryfying to live in. And i think, it is closer in atmosphere to Dick's novels - a plus for me.

• Characters - 4/5 Aside Jared Leto's performance, i really don't have much to cling about. It was overall well cast and acted.

• Dialogue to action ratio - umm... Not much to Not much? Tarantino movies have an hour of dialogue to a minute of action. On the other side of the spectrum you have movies like John Wick... BR2049 doesn't really depend on neither. But it's not a flaw. It's just a different kind of movie. Shows, instead of telling(mostly), and invites you to immerse into the presented world and follow hero's journey. It's almost a contemplative piece.

The atmosphere is everything. Whatever else in the movie that doesn't stand up to scrutiny is overshadowed by what an amazing tone/mood/setting/experience it is.

Loved the atmosphere and sound design. I thought some of the characters were quite cookie cutter (Jared Leto *cough*) but I really enjoyed it.

Overrated... It was too long, tried too hard sometimes with the music and look, certain parts like the pyramid interior looked more like an overly done music video than a movie. The climax was awful and ending with Gosling laying there being ambiguous about his life/death was cliched and Gosling's Drive ends the same way (kinda). It has some positives, but I don't get all the love it receives. Children of Men, Gattaca, Black Mirror, BSG, Fringe, and plenty of other stuff is way better sci-fi to me. I actually like the director, but think this is his worst movie. I almost wanted to leave the theater when I saw this and some of my favorite movies are long, drawn out ones like No Country for Old Men and Assassination of Jesse James. I think some of the love 2049 gets is based on nostalgia and with others think that they're "supposed to love it since it's so smart", when the story itself is pretty typical and straightforward.

@ntm: Maybe we can respect a slow and plodding movie, but so far I fell asleep thrice (no lie, only to be disturbed again by the loud banging) and haven't yet finished it. So I should reserve final judgment. The writing however is annoying, this holding of replicants as slaves is obviously completely morally wrong, so why do we have to watch and act like it was normal. The whole birth thing, it's pseudo smart, spiritual BS.

The photography and everything else is nice but its all borrowed from the original, so I don't see how it warrants praise. Except the original was visually a noir, THIS movie is so orange it, should be called l'orange (French-Canadian for 'the orange'). People who accept dumbed down remakes from the truly soulless Hollywood, are all part of the problem. Nobody needs this! So let's not ape the cinephile sycophants shall we, Let's not chime with their chorus of praise.

This whole deleting of AR Waifu sub-plot I consider fan-service, sorry can't relate. Also the part with the superhuman chick kicking ass, found a quick resolution in the original, but here it drags on for the entirety and is just unpleasant to watch. I hate most of the actors casted for this even Harrison Ford with his bad hips, except for the lead.

Rutger Hauer made the original film, this one is more evocative of Elsa the Replicant of the SS.

Drones, augmented reality, landfill landscapes none of those are particularly imaginative visions of the future, neither is upgrading your projector arm to a mobile device/electric toothbrush.

I'm sure the conclusion will appropriately turn all the involved twats in a twist. Watching it as I write this: A reveal does not good writing or memory make, although it circles the story back on itself leaving an impression, just like a bicycle tire plowing through a turd.

Long and slow and occasionally boring, also fucking mindblowing.

I felt it was a bit fur coat and no knickers. Had a couple of interesting visual moments but not enough. I felt it had a pedantic focus on world building that massively turned me off. There are significant elements of the plot that appear to have been dropped in from a late 90s Schwarzenegger film.

Saw the film. Pretty good. I posted more of my thoughts on the first post. I'm hoping that the more I think about it, the more I like it rather than vice versa, but as it sinks in, the more nitpicky I am getting. I'll definitely have to watch it again. Ah man... I'm getting kind of bummed out about it thinking negatively of it, ha ha. I understand the world changes in thirty years (I'm referring to the world in the film), but the changes are kind of depressing, far more lonely and a little less interesting for it. It achieves something in that, but it also makes it less easy to appreciate it as the first film. The film is good, but not in the same way as the first. I just got done watching it on the 4K screen in the living room, and I honestly want to pop it in the PC here and watch it again with headphones on. Something I'm happy that didn't happen is that the person I was watching it with didn't get bored of it, and ended up saying it's his favorite film Ryan Gosling has been in. The film I fear may be like the first where it's not enough action and too much lingering and talking, which I am okay with. I was honestly expecting a '*sigh* this movie isn't doing much huh?' Then I'd be stuck just watching it on my own, which is fine, but is kind of disappointing if it ever happens.

Edit - I just watched it again. While I can say a bunch of things about what I liked and disliked, overall the thing that permeates my mind is just sadness. I loved the world that was created in the first one, and for me, it's both a pro and con to see the difference that was made in 2049. To me, it's like falling asleep at one time and waking up a few decades later and just enough is different that you wish it were as you remembered, or you wish you were there to actually experience what isn't seen. I don't really know if I wanted more of the same, and I'm glad for the changes to the world, but the world has gone even bleaker in many respects than it was in the first. As for the story, I don't really think it had as many interesting hooks that will make me ponder as the first and it has possible plotholes, but overall I enjoyed it. I... Kind of want to see another Blade Runner.

I rewatched both movies recently and if people think Bladerunner is all about long establishing shots they're just wrong. Sure, the first movie is slow, but the times it does linger it's usually because it follows the old "show, don't tell" and actually tells a story with its presentation The new one on the other hand just lingers for little to no reason. The sequence that perfectly points this out for me is when K lands in Las Vegas. Both times I've watched the movie that has been the point where I just zoned out, so I went back to check and it's literally 10 minutes from the start of the sequence to the point they start their conversation and most of the stuff during those 10 minutes is just pointless fluff.

I seemed not to notice it

You can have Luv without Joi but you can't have Joi without Luv.