Supermallet

I have to agree with Joe, the mouth looked off from Young’s real mouth in the original (it didn’t help that they showed a clip of her right before), and IMO the voice sounded nothing like Young (also didn’t help that they used a sound clip of her real voice right before).

Save Ferris

I came into the movie not knowing about the Rachel cameo. When it started happening on screen I was already starting to cringe in anticipation. It bugged me and I couldn't get into it. Maybe the original is just too ingrained in the memory that messing with it just diminishes the attempt?

But add me to the list of unconvinced. Her head movements were jerky and the eyebrow emotion was a bit cartoony. The shape of her face was a little bit off, like she gained some weight?

Finisher

Can't you justify the Rachel thing as that she's NOT an exact replica and she's supposed to be off slightly ("her eyes were green")?

milo bloom

Right.

It's over 30 years since the original version of Rachel was made, so some differences could creep in. And when I was in the theater I knew it was CGI but it still looked good enough for the story point they were trying to make.

Supermallet

You can and that’s fine, I was just disputing the idea that this was a seamless CGI recreation.

kefrank

It's not the differences from the original Rachel that are the problem IMO, but rather the little things that look unnatural. Replicants still look and act natural - this was one of the best CGI human characters I've seen, but it still didn't look totally "real".

james2025a

I managed to finally see it yesterday and will add my thoughts when i have a chance. Just to state that the CGI Rachael was fine, but it was just off.. As someone said, it seemed like a slighlty more heavy in the face version of the original. The voice was off as well. And a friend said to me and it was something i questionned when watching the movie, but Wallace has photographs of Rachael so how could he get the eye color wrong.

Mabuse

Forget it Jake, it's Blade Runner.

Rachael had brown eyes in Blade Runner. When Deckard V/K's her the image on screen of an eye is green. It's one of that film's many continuity errors that have led to countless speculations. Was it a continuity error? Or a deliberate choice to make the audience think? 2049 seems to be continuing the tradition of ambiguous "mistakes".

Save Ferris

This makes the most sense. It certainly creates buzz and allows room for creative revisionism in the years to come.

milo bloom

And didn't the movie start off with a close-up of a green eye that we were never given an identity for?

Why So Blu?

The close-up of the eye in the first Blade Runner movie was that of the other Blade Runner that interviews Leon -- that starts at the beginning of the film.

at the 50 second mark -- that's him looking out the panoramic window.

Mabuse

Yes, the editing indicates that it's the Blade Runner Holden's eye as he looks out at the city, but in a sort of expressionistic, out of body experience way. But I don't recal if they actual used Morgan Paull, the actor who played Holden, or just somebody patient enough to have their eye filmed.

james2025a

Well it starts out as Green but in the final question the eye color has changed to Brown. This could be the way the V/K machine identifies replicants. The workings of the V/K machine are never really delved into, and i like that about it. Its testing emotional response and looking at the eyes reactions, but we never really know what exactly its looking for. Whether it was done on purpose or by accident i like the fact that it causes discussion and theories behind it.

Hokeyboy

Or maybe Deckard just wanted to give Wallace the finger.

Why So Blu?

DeFan

I have no idea what this picture means. Why has it been posted multiple times?

DJariya

Saw this last night. Originally tried seeing it back on October 5th (a 10:45pm showing), but I fell asleep for most of it.

Anyways, I was wide awake this time around and really enjoyed it. The 2 hours and 44 minutes moved relatively fast.

I'm not going to write some long ramble that no one will read, but I will say it was one of the best visual movies I've seen in a long time. The score was loud at times, but I think it worked for the atmosphere of this movie. Villeneuve did a great job creating this world.

I didn't mind that Deckard didn't appear until roughly the 90 minute mark. For the context of this movie, IMO it worked just fine. Joi was gorgeous.

I was a little confused about K's status. We got some information that he may not have been a replicant and that those memories he had as a child were real?

And are we supposed to assume that K died at the end from his injuries?

Overall, a great theatrical experience. Not sure when, but at some point down the line, I'll definitely try to see it again. Probably for it's future 4K UHD release, but not right away. This is a movie that needs time to digest.

Really too bad that this movie failed to catch on like it's predecessor. Maybe it was just too sophisticated or cultish for the general public to appreciate.

Why So Blu?

Think about it...

kefrank

K was a replicant. The memory of the horse in the furnace was a real memory from the childhood of the memory-maker, Ana, who was Deckard's daughter. She wasn't supposed to use her own real memories as memories she was creating for other replicants, but she broke that law and did in this case. It was at least implanted in K, if not other replicants as well.

Yes.

james2025a

Well thats obvious in how the scene plays out. Deckard turns his back on them both when he says it. But it makes me wonder more about the original movie and the V/K machine and the ambiguity of Rachaels test than it does the scene with Wallace in 2049. One plays our straight whilst the other leaves unanswered questions.

milo bloom

So you know how Stranger Things felt like a 2 hour Spielberg movie stretched out over 8 episodes? Blade Runner's long run time, to me, felt like an 8 episode mini-series re-written into a feature length movie. Like, if they had the budget, it could be expanded out into 8 hour long episodes, but it would start to drag, but at it's current runtime, it's just the right length.

And Ford had just the right amount of screentime. By the time I started wondering when he'd show up, he did a few minutes later.

Supermallet

We won’t know for a few years if this has caught on like the original. The first film was a theatrical flop too but flourished on revival screenings and home video.

Azor Ahai

Probably my only real gripe with the film is that this reveal happens so fast, it's almost blink-and-you'll miss it. Just didn't have the major impact that I felt it should've had. We get more time spent on that cool but pointless little bit of Frank Sinatra crooning "Summer Wind".

--

RichC2

I felt there was emotional resonance when the creator of the dream was crying while viewing the dream. They telegraphed it well.

DthRdrX

Saw it tonight as it will be out of my local theaters after tomorrow. Bladerunner has always been one of my favorite films. I thought this was outstanding for numerous reasons. It really felt like the same exact world, at a much larger scope that we all wanted to explore after the first film.

One thing that was in the film that I never thought about before was the:



I just thought this was fantastic.