Rare sequel that is better than the original - Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Discussion

[–] Redsfan001 (6158) 4 years ago

It is pretty good.

The best review that I read was a simple one sentence statement.

"A love letter to Blade Runner fans."

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1962) 4 years ago

More like "Blade Runner done by people that didn't understand what made Blade Runner good".

reply

[–] prometheus1816 (1060) 3 years ago

Well Ridley Scott was an executive producer on this and loved Denis Villenuve vision. The story was also by Scott.

reply

[–] LoveCatsHateDogs (1962) 3 years ago

Writing Credits (WGA)
Hampton Fancher ... (screenplay by) and
Michael Green ... (screenplay by)

Hampton Fancher ... (story by)

Philip K. Dick ... (based on characters from the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" by)

reply

[–] huwdj (4567) 3 years ago

That's an interesting description. I was disappointed the first time I watched this film - liked it a little better the second time - and it does feel totally rooted in the first film. Not just 'the continuing adventure of' or 'this is what happens next' kind of way - more of an exploration of the world view it created.

reply

[–] MartyDeniro (4173) 4 years ago

easy now

reply

[–] bobbydallas (8556) 4 years ago

i like the first one mainly because of Rutger Hauer.
the 2017 didn't really do it for me.

reply

[–] maximmm (3344) 3 years ago

Agreed - Rutger Hauer did an acting masterclass.

reply

[–] BensGirl (590) 4 years ago

Whilst it probably is the better film, nostalgia and how iconic the original was, makes me hard to admit it. The original soundtrack is phenomenal!!

reply

[–] joi2049 (5562) 4 years ago

This was a 10/10.

I agree.

BR 2049 is definitely a MASTERPIECE of STORY TELLING !!!

👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

reply

[–] Jsully9 (377) 3 years ago

A can of dog food was better than the 1st one.

reply

[–] trevorh321 (5495) 3 years ago

I agree about the original. I would give it 8/10. BR2049 one has tons more (and better) special effects. But so what? That means a bigger budget. The story is not better. The acting is not better. I was never close to being as immersed in what was going on and I have absolutely no desire to watch it again. And, to me, there is not a more overrated director than Villeneuve. Maybe ever. So I give BR2049 a 6/10 and that is almost entirely due to the visuals.

reply

[–] Kowalski (76257) 3 years ago

I WANT TO LIKE BLADE RUNNER...I DO LIKE PARTS...MOSTLY I GET BORED...THE SEQUEL IS MORE OF THE SAME TIMES 10.

reply

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

They're both boring af. Everyone (especially movie buffs) WANTS to like acclaimed movies because A) you don't want hype to be false. everyone wants more good movies, and B) it means you "get" something great

But therein lies the trap in art appreciation, people convince themselves or else just lie about their true feelings on a movie. On the other side of the coin you have knee-jerk contrarians and naysayers that like to nitpick truly great works, and you don't want to be one of THOSE pricks, so it makes you cautious to shit on acclaimed movies

But lots of acclaimed movies are flawed and many outright suck. BR and BR2 are both very boring. That is the truth

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4375) 3 years ago

The original was boring. Not an awful film but yes very slow paced and little story. The sequel is an improvement in every way....

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

The original is boring as hell but it is saved by stunning future-noir visuals and music, and Rutger Hauer’s fantastic performance.

BR actually manages to make a character played by Harrison Ford - one of the most charismatic movie stars ever - dull and unlikeable. That takes skill.

BR2049 has none of the redeeming qualities of BR, and its flaws are painfully dragged out over 2.5 hours.

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4375) 3 years ago

Bullshit. It's a better film in almost every way. Including visuals...

reply

[–] Drooch (5333) 3 years ago

🤣

reply