• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Blade Runner 2

Loved this. I'd been deeply skeptical, worrying that this was the typical Hollywood cash grab, nostalgia-raiding, "franchise" film. The choice of director gave me some hope.

The movie blew me away. Faithful without being slave to the original, this was an amazing film. In many ways stronger thematically than the original, and absolutely with a stronger narrative drive. But it keeps the lingering moodiness, and lets the actors do a lot of the heavy lifting with the more subtle elements of the performances.

Also, I didn't hate Jared Leto in this. That is a first, and tells me the movie did something right.
 
Really just a fantastic film overall. I really need to see it again to fully process it, but it is a rare experience for me to be so engrossed in a movie. There was none of the overbearing CGI extravagance that even the best Sci-Fi/Fantasy can't seem to avoid these days and I honestly can't articulate how much of a relief it was to see that restraint. Even the references to the original were well-woven enough that they didn't feel like excess, and I particularly liked how they handled the "is he/isn't he?" question.
 
I felt that they were a bit self-indulgent in the first half and the pace needed to be upped there to move into the plot elements we were all waiting for but overall I loved the many subtleties of the movie. The performances were great, especially the replicants as ever. I really liked the conclusion to the intelligent hologram arc, it's something I've been saying about Star Trek Voyager for decades :-P.

I struggle to understand why you would build replicants with no incept dates unless they mean that they degrade in a similar fashion to humans.

Given how unpopular she was during the first movie, I wonder if they had fun with Sean Young's fate in this one...
 
It seems like most(all?) replicants we see on screen are made to be in their physical "prime" (20-30) and then age/degrade similar to a human from that point forward.
 
Venardhi said:
It seems like most(all?) replicants we see on screen are made to be in their physical "prime" (20-30) and then age/degrade similar to a human from that point forward.
Click to expand...
I assume they made Sapper an obviously aging Replicant so as to keep the Deckard-as-Rep possibility alive. No firm answers.

Pauln6 said:
I struggle to understand why you would build replicants with no incept dates
Click to expand...
You can't. The incept date is the day a Replicant is "born", not the date they expire. ;)
 
Last edited:
They even made a point of showing a young Bautista model floating in a tank, and showed us the would-be resistance leader when she was young in that picture.
 
Tosk said:
I assume they made Sapper an obviously aging Replicant so as to keep the Deckard-as-Rep possibility alive. No firm answers.

You can't. The incept date is the day a Replicant is "born", not the date they expire. ;)
Click to expand...
Doh. My bad. Human ageing is determined by the length of our telomeres so it stands to reason that open ended lifespan does not necessarily mean immortality or no ageing at all. If they could engineer immortality, you would think the humans would fare better.
 
Hey, guys could you watch the spoilers. This thread isn't marked for spoilers, and we do have another spoiler thread going now.
How confusing would this be for someone who hasn't seen the original? I don't like going to the movies by myself, and the only other person I have to go see this with is my mom who hasn't seen the original. How lost would she be?
 
JD said:
How confusing would this be for someone who hasn't seen the original? I don't like going to the movies by myself, and the only other person I have to go see this with is my mom who hasn't seen the original. How lost would she be?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen it myself, but for what it's worth, one of my Facebook friends just opined that it would be accessible to someone who hadn't seen the original.
 
JD said:
How confusing would this be for someone who hasn't seen the original? I don't like going to the movies by myself, and the only other person I have to go see this with is my mom who hasn't seen the original. How lost would she be?
Click to expand...

Shouldn't be confusing at all. One sequence in particular might not resonate quite as much, but it should be easily followed. This film definitely doesn't assume anybody saw the first one, providing all the information necessary to follow the plot right there in the film. Some of the larger world building might not be quite as clear without the original film, but nothing that I would think makes it harder to follow this one's story.
 
Yeah, I would say it's accessible for people who haven't seen the original.

While the film continues Deckard's journey, this film is distinctly K's story and the film is better for it. There are references to the original, but not in a confusing way. Those that are directly tied to the plot are clearly explained.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top