The long overdue _Blade Runner_ thread

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
http://orbita.starmedia.com/~necrose/Sci-Fi/Filmes/blade1.jpg http://digilander.libero.it/Loie/Roy%20Batty02.jpg http://digilander.libero.it/Loie/img14.jpg http://www.brmovie.com/Images/Characters/Pris/BR_Pris_Is_Lost.jpg http://www.brmovie.com/Images/Characters/Gaff/brsm_gaff.jpg

I am seriously shocked at discovering that apparently no Blade Runner thread existed until now. (If there is and all my searching was in vain, please to say.)

Post everything and anything here. For now, I got a further shock earlier today when I read in Paul Sammon's book on the movie a bit saying that there's a headline on a newspaper Deckard is reading that contains the phrase 'The Moon and Antarctica.' Fuckin' Modest Mouse.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 April 2006 03:26 (eleven years ago) Permalink

ATARI AND PAN-AM STILL EXIST IN 2019

Who prefers the Director's Cut ending up in this area? I used to but now I'm unsure what ending is best.

Rabbi Esteban Buttez (ESTEBAN BUTTEZ~!!!), Monday, 17 April 2006 03:40 (eleven years ago) Permalink

yeah i think it's about time for a re-visit.

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 03:43 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Lemme tell you about my mother.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 03:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink

for god's sake kenan, take it to another thread.

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 03:46 (eleven years ago) Permalink

haha

Surely there is no finer science fiction film than this one. Surely.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 03:48 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Oh, and greatest score ever. Perhaps.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 April 2006 03:52 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Seeing this film for the first time, even in the most compromised form ever done of it -- on CBS in 1986, four years after eleven-year-old me saw all the ads for its theatrical run and couldn't understand why my parents weren't going to take me to see Han Solo/Indiana Jones in his new film -- was kinda like lightning out of a clear blue sky.

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 April 2006 03:54 (eleven years ago) Permalink

it's so amazing to me that ridley scott made these two movies that just totally changed cinema sci-fi, or if not changed, then at least became the big movies to rip off for like 20 years, and then never really returned to the genre again.

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 03:57 (eleven years ago) Permalink

And never really excelled at anything else.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 03:59 (eleven years ago) Permalink

uh gi jane?

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:03 (eleven years ago) Permalink

of course. how could I forget that one.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:05 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Deckard:Shakes? Me too.
Rachael:What?
Deckard:I get 'em bad. It's part of the business.
Rachael:I'm not in the business. -- I am the business.

Tyrell: 66 thousand Prosser and Ankovich. Hmm.. Trade. Trade at--
Computer: New entry. A Mr. J. F. Sebastian. 1-6-4-1-7.
Tyrell: At this hour? What can I do for you Sebastian.
Sebastian:Queen to Bishop 6. Check.
Tyrell: Nonsense. Just a moment. Mmm. Queen to Bishop 6. Ridiculous. Queen to Bishop 6. Hmm... Knight takes Queen. -- What's on your mind Sebastian? What are you thinking about.
Roy:(whispered) Bishop to King 7. Checkmate.
Sebastian:Bishop to King 7. Checkmate, I think.
Tyrell: Got a brainstorm, huh, Sebastian? Milk and cookies kept you awake, huh? Lets discuss this. You better come up, Sebastian.
Sebastian:Mr. Tyrell. I-- I brought a friend.

kephm (kephm), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:07 (eleven years ago) Permalink

y'know, I think I just love both versions in dif ways, but I mean, if this is on late at night, chopped up and interrupted by (painful) ads for life-saving bracelets and suburban sex shops, I will stay up and watch it. A true test of awesome movie power.

rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:09 (eleven years ago) Permalink

seduction, the mega love boutique. 5220 metropolitan east.

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:10 (eleven years ago) Permalink

hahahahaha.
yes!

rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:13 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"Have a better one."

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:14 (eleven years ago) Permalink

OMG the commercial came on RIGHT NOW. shockah...

rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:16 (eleven years ago) Permalink

it's so amazing to me that ridley scott made these two movies that just totally changed cinema sci-fi, or if not changed, then at least became the big movies to rip off for like 20 years, and then never really returned to the genre again.

Harlan Ellison tells the story that at a meeting with him when Scott was considering Dune with Giger on for design (woulda been great), Scott told Ellison that he wanted to be the John Ford of sf. Imagine if?

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:16 (eleven years ago) Permalink

man i'd love to see that alternate reality

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:17 (eleven years ago) Permalink

This movie has three big things going for it (in no special order):

1) The visuals. God, what visuals. They do not age, which is point of discussion in itself. This movie should look dated, but it doesn't. Why?

2) The tone. It's pitch-perfect crime drama all the way through, without a wink.

3) The themes. In effect: it has some, whereas most movies do not have the balls to have themes. Even the scenes that should be over the top somehow aren't. If the scene where the creation crushes the creator's skull in anger isn't an obvious metaphor, I don't know what is, but it works. See #2.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:17 (eleven years ago) Permalink

every movie has THEMES.

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:18 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Not like this.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:19 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Ok, you're right, literally speaking, every movie has themes. But not many movies play as opera.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:20 (eleven years ago) Permalink

and even fewer play as "popera."

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:21 (eleven years ago) Permalink

If only you could see what I've seen with your eyes.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:26 (eleven years ago) Permalink

one of the most quotable movies ever

latebloomer: Ambassador With Training In Righteousness (latebloomer), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:30 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"i say, blade runner!"

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:32 (eleven years ago) Permalink

The obvious: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:32 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Great example of a collaborative screenplay as well. Fancher and Peoples never directly worked together but Peoples modified and reworked Fancher's original screenplay just so, both of course running off the ideas of Dick's novel. Then to top it off the 'tears in rain' line was created by Hauer himself!

Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:32 (eleven years ago) Permalink

he say you brade runner mr decker!

latebloomer: Ambassador With Training In Righteousness (latebloomer), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:33 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Then to top it off the 'tears in rain' line was created by Hauer himself!

I didn't know that! It's SO perfect.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:35 (eleven years ago) Permalink

For now, I got a further shock earlier today when I read in Paul Sammon's book on the movie a bit saying that there's a headline on a newspaper Deckard is reading that contains the phrase 'The Moon and Antarctica.' Fuckin' Modest Mouse.

-- Ned Raggett (ne...), April 17th, 2006.

thats a great book! truly a labor of love. its so jam-packed with info. its really a treasure trove for anyone who loves the film.

latebloomer: Ambassador With Training In Righteousness (latebloomer), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:36 (eleven years ago) Permalink

iy was also Hauers idea to release the dove into the sky too

latebloomer: Ambassador With Training In Righteousness (latebloomer), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:37 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I once broke up with a girl because she didn't understand the dove.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:38 (eleven years ago) Permalink

you sure YOU broke up with HER?

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:39 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Quite. I mean, she didn't understand the movie at all. She was a silly little thing.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:40 (eleven years ago) Permalink

holy shit i love this movie.


xpost - don't say "quite" anymore.

gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:41 (eleven years ago) Permalink

It's a word, innit? And also, holy shit I love this movie too.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:42 (eleven years ago) Permalink

was kinda like lightning out of a clear blue sky

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:44 (eleven years ago) Permalink

the score is brilliant and it's strangely inseparable from the foley track, which is also brilliant.

also: weird '80s references to race and stuff, à la "goonies" and "gremlins." you don't see that anymore for some reason.

the unexpected thing about this film is that the scenes of violence are the worst in the film, and the climax isn't as exciting as you'd hope. it breaks the mood of frustrated desire and apprehension that the film works so hard to build.

has anyone evaluated scott as an action director? i mean, the "action" scenes of this film really let it down, as much for narrative as visual reasons. and IIRC the action scenes of "gladiator" left a lot to be desired as well.

sometimes i feel similarly about david lynch, although he has been known to make really interesting things out of pretty violent scenes.

also i've been told the ending of the director's cut is TOO SUBTLE but


***SPOILERS***

it's hard to imagine how they could have telegraphed the message "DECKERT IS A REPLICANT" any clearer than the edward james olmos character placing the unicorn origami figure outside his apartment. i am impressed by the *economy* of this motif though--they don't overdo it.

amateurist0, Monday, 17 April 2006 04:46 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I had to try to explain the unicorn to stoners once. While stoned. It kind of hurt.

okay, I like the Director's Cut way more.

rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:48 (eleven years ago) Permalink

eleven-year-old me...couldn't understand why my parents weren't going to take me to see Han Solo/Indiana Jones in his new film

i was 12 or 13, just old enough for my dad to take me (he wanted to see it, so i think taking me became kind of a way for him to justify an evening away from home). completely blew my mind.

i think it makes most sense in the context of the urban dystopia films of the time. it's the ultimate urban dytopia, even more than taxi driver or the warriors or escape from new york or whatever. and more prescient by a long shot, because those movies were all predicated on urban desolation, whereas in blade runner the wealth hasn't abandoned the city, it's just moved even farther up above it than before. in a lot of those other movies, you're meant to assume that there's wealth somewhere, but it's certainly not in the city, it's fled somewhere far away. in blade runner, it's right there in your face, looming up above in the penthouses (and selling things to you from giant billboards, recruiting you to go work shit jobs in outer space for megacorporations).

i still love it. but just for fun, here's a little of pauline kael's review (from july 7, 1982):

Blade Runner is a suspenseless thriller; it appears to be a victim of its own imaginative use of hardware and miniatures and mattes. At some point, Scott and the others must have decided that the story was unimportant; maybe the booming, lewd and sultry score by Chariots-for-Hire Vangelis that seems to come out of the smoke convinced them that the audience would be moved even if the vital parts of the story were trimmed.

...Blade Runner doesn't engage you directly; it forces passivity on you. It sets you down in this lopsided maze of a city, with its post-human feeling, and keeps you persuaded that something bad is about to happen. Some of the scenes seem to have six subtexts but no text, and no context either.

...[T]his movie loses track of the few expectations it sets up, and the formlessness adds to a viewer's demoralization -- the film itself seems part of the atmosphere of decay. Blade Runner has nothing to give the audience -- not even a second of sorrow for Sebastian. It hasn't been thought out in human terms. If anybody comes around with a test to detect humanoids, maybe Ridley Scott and his associates should hide. With all the smoke in this movie, you feel as if everyone connected with it needs to have his flue cleaned.

gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:48 (eleven years ago) Permalink

i kind of (read: VERY MUCH) want to watch this immediately. it's been at least 6 years.

gbx (skowly), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:49 (eleven years ago) Permalink

has anyone evaluated scott as an action director?

Scott is not a consistent director in any genre, but dude, watch one Alien.

Gilbert O'Sullivan (kenan), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:49 (eleven years ago) Permalink

haha, ALL I want to do right now is watch this!
xpost

rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:50 (eleven years ago) Permalink

also kenan you sound like an ass

amateurist0, Monday, 17 April 2006 04:51 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"chariots-for-hire"

what a bad joke

s1ocki (slutsky), Monday, 17 April 2006 04:53 (eleven years ago) Permalink

god i can just imagine pauline kael congratulating herself after every line of that review

not that she's entirely wrong, but it's 95% opinion, 5% description, and a few too many puns

amateurist0, Monday, 17 April 2006 04:54 (eleven years ago) Permalink

enhance
click click click click

enhance

mh, Monday, 23 October 2017 01:37 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Going to see this tomorrow. Last thing I watched at the cinema I think was The Thing (prequel).

Guy who I'm going with is the biggest BR fan on this planet, so can't wait for his ultra sonic tantrum in the car journey afterwards (based on info from this thread)

Ste, Monday, 23 October 2017 14:35 (three weeks ago) Permalink

He'll love it.

Josh in Chicago, Monday, 23 October 2017 15:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

A book that, obviously not coincidentally, Gosling has in his apartment and his AI offers to read even though, by his own observation, she doesn't like it.

― Josh in Chicago, Sunday, October 22, 2017

The Bustillos piece is way too literal to work and Pale Fire "reveals" nothing imo, but it does offer an interesting lens, and obviously significant. It's in Joshi's office as well.

Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Monday, 23 October 2017 18:45 (three weeks ago) Permalink

re phones mentioned upthread, his digital girlfriend doubles as a phone so wtf

actually I found this to be the single most affecting scene in the moving

it me, Monday, 23 October 2017 20:01 (three weeks ago) Permalink

*movie

it me, Monday, 23 October 2017 20:02 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Saw this last night. Loved it.

There are some minor points I could complain about, but it would be nitpicking. The visuals, the sound, the deep world that they created for this movie were amazing. This is why I go to the movies.

silverfish, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 13:44 (three weeks ago) Permalink

well, mk2 stayed awake throughout, and talked about it all the way home.
said he loved it.
i'd call that a much better result than i expected.
i thought it was just wonderful, and a really good way to continue the storyline from the original.

mark e, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 15:51 (three weeks ago) Permalink

What a grand lark to STILL NOT TELL US FOR SURE if Deck is robo-Deck or not. A brilliant wheeze that, i bet Hampton Fancher was pissing himself.

piscesx, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 19:16 (three weeks ago) Permalink

It was everything I wanted it to be without knowing it. I even liked Hans Zimmer's contributions for once – much like Villeneuve himself, Zimmer and Wallfisch struck an ideal balance between homage, imitation and continuation. And Fancher managed to augur a third instalment without cheapening the plot. I'm glad I temporarily overcame my irrational, newfound – well, it's only been ten years or so… – aversion toward movies and TV series in general.

pomenitul, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 19:42 (three weeks ago) Permalink

yeah i haven't been to a movie in years, that probably helped, even if my showing did get dumped in the 'little theater' rather than the big room where i saw it

j., Tuesday, 24 October 2017 19:46 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Theater sound mixing is so weird now -- the second place I saw the film was way too loud, and the bass crossover was off so dialogue almost got lost in the rumble at times, but there were certain parts where the spatial mix was amazing. The scene where K's in the Las Vegas street and hears the piano was actually obvious! In my first viewing you couldn't quite hear the piano, even when he went inside and could hear Deckard playing upstairs.

There were also some parts where there was music playing from a source in the background and it really sounded as if it was coming from the corner behind the characters.

The transition scenes in the car were extra BWAAAAAAM

mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 19:52 (three weeks ago) Permalink

yeah, I actually wonder how much my enjoyment of this movie is due to seeing it on in an Imax theater which had a very good (and very loud) sound system.

silverfish, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 19:58 (three weeks ago) Permalink

A significant part of it, I'm sure, but there's nothing wrong with that. It's vision and sound, after all…

pomenitul, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:01 (three weeks ago) Permalink

The Dolby cinema site doesn't have it listed, but the theater I saw it in that second time has Dolby Atmos, if that means a specific audio mix

mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I only wish I was at one of the theaters that sprays rain and smog at you. Now that's immersion!

mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:06 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Thank God odour simulators are still decades away.

pomenitul, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:09 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I have very bad news for you
http://www.cj4dx.com/aboutus/aboutus.php

mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:12 (three weeks ago) Permalink

What a grand lark to STILL NOT TELL US FOR SURE if Deck is robo-Deck or not

yeah, this was a definite part of the discussion on the way home as i too was trying to figure out if this had actually been revealed ..

mark e, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:13 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I have very bad news for you
http://www.cj4dx.com/aboutus/aboutus.php

― mh, Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:12 PM

Oh no.

pomenitul, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:18 (three weeks ago) Permalink

What a grand lark to STILL NOT TELL US FOR SURE if Deck is robo-Deck or not

yeah, this was a definite part of the discussion on the way home as i too was trying to figure out if this had actually been revealed ..

― mark e, Tuesday, October 24, 2017 4:13 PM

Not only that, but the mystery of the 'miracle' is further deepened by our inability to determine whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant. Well played, Mr. Fancher.

pomenitul, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I wonder if they tried to bring david peoples back also? hes old but actually younger than fancher

johnny crunch, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:23 (three weeks ago) Permalink

oh, and i know its a small thing,
but i loved that some of the adverts still had the same vocals that have been sampled by various industrial/electronica bands ('a new world' etc)

mark e, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:49 (three weeks ago) Permalink

incredibly obvious, but I appreciated the reuse of the "Tears in the Rain" song from the original

Roy Batty dying in the rain, K dying in the snow

also the thing he does several times during the film where he looks down at his hand, waves it and turns it over, is the same thing the daughter does in the holographic falling snow inside her home

mh, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:51 (three weeks ago) Permalink

And the same thing the AI girlfriend does in the rain.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 20:52 (three weeks ago) Permalink

did you ever look at your hand, man? like really look at it?

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Tuesday, 24 October 2017 21:01 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Robots are obsessed with precipitation, for obvious reasons.

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 21:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

https://i.ytimg.com/vi/cYD9LtTFMPk/maxresdefault.jpg

Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 21:05 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I still get a laugh every day thinking about the scene where Deckard locks the door behind him and K runs through the wall like the Kool-Aid Man. That could have been out of a Buster Keaton movie, or Young Frankenstein.

WilliamC, Tuesday, 24 October 2017 21:18 (three weeks ago) Permalink

What a grand lark to STILL NOT TELL US FOR SURE if Deck is robo-Deck or not. A brilliant wheeze that, i bet Hampton Fancher was pissing himself.

― piscesx, Tuesday, October 24, 2017

anyone who bought a ticket looking for THE ANSWER TO THIS ANCIENT MYSTERY deserves exactly what they get

Larry Elleison (rogermexico.), Wednesday, 25 October 2017 00:34 (three weeks ago) Permalink

yeah loved this. Watching baseball right now so will post something more extensive tomorrow.

Ste, Wednesday, 25 October 2017 00:45 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I loved this. Just loved being immersed in it (it's to the film's credit that I, a pregnant parent of a toddler who can barely sit down without desperately needing to go to sleep, did not begin to doze off). Perhaps flagged a bit in the last 20 mins or so.
From the first shot that was in (white smoggy) daylight it was kind of refreshing yet familiar. Gosling a bit too broody though? Like there's only a couple of glimpses of the impact of what he's finding.

kinder, Thursday, 26 October 2017 20:47 (three weeks ago) Permalink

https://www.facebook.com/WetaWorkshop/posts/10154685746932303

Weta behind the scenes building miniature BR 2049 sets

mh, Thursday, 26 October 2017 21:53 (three weeks ago) Permalink

gosling appropriately affectless for the numbing existence his character leads but yes i kind of agree, if he's a Real Boy he sure doesn't show it very often

illegal economic migration (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 26 October 2017 22:35 (three weeks ago) Permalink

The donkey doesn’t show what it’s feeling in Au Hasard Balthazar very much either—and it’s maybe an over the top comparison but his character’s final moments struck me as similar.

ryan, Thursday, 26 October 2017 23:21 (three weeks ago) Permalink

That comparison makes sense and brings to mind Descartes' relevantly wrongheaded conception of animals as automata.

pomenitul, Thursday, 26 October 2017 23:30 (three weeks ago) Permalink

It all traces back to the Drunken Boat by Arthur Rimbaud. The protagonist of that poem is an outmoded piece of technology that wanders the Earth for decades past its expiration date. So are the replicants. I actually think they lifted parts of the original screenplay's dialogue directly from the poem.

Compare this stanza:

I know the skies bursting with lightning, and the waterspouts
And the surf and the currents; I know the evening,
And dawn as exalted as a flock of doves
And at times I have seen what man thought he saw!

with Batty's speech from the original:

I've... seen things you people wouldn't believe...
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-Beams glitter in the dark
Near the Tannhäuser Gates.

it me, Friday, 27 October 2017 00:04 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Not to mention the 'sidereal archipelagos'. I'm not convinced, mind you, but you can add that to your dossier.

pomenitul, Friday, 27 October 2017 00:08 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Hauer wrote those lines himself iirc

mh, Friday, 27 October 2017 00:23 (three weeks ago) Permalink

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue

mh, Friday, 27 October 2017 00:24 (three weeks ago) Permalink

that description of the Drunken Boat had me wracking my brain for when I'd seen a cartoon about a robot who helps throughout all of human civilisation. thought I was going mad. but it was a little story within Fargo s3.

kinder, Friday, 27 October 2017 07:08 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Yeah, was going to say. "I can help!"

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 27 October 2017 12:39 (three weeks ago) Permalink

I finally got to see this last night. I had expected it to be good, but I'm very pleased to say that I think it's flat-out great. Sure, Villeneuve didn't craft a perfect movie, but then again, who does?
It's the first time that Gosling has impressed me as an actor - in particular, at the moment that the gigantic Joi addresses him as "Joe", and his head sinks as the last of his illusions evaporates.

CS-80-esque Vangelis-tribute sounds were terrific

Yes. There's a soundtrack-making-of on YouTube, in which Wallfisch is filmed recording a part with Zimmer's CS-80, and expertly using the pitch ribbon to achieve those trademark Vangelis slides.

Vast Halo, Sunday, 29 October 2017 21:01 (three weeks ago) Permalink

Tons of great stuff here, it goes deep:

https://www.provideocoalition.com/AOTC-Bladerunner-2049

Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 4 November 2017 23:24 (two weeks ago) Permalink

planning to attend on the 18th, will report DV's remarks

https://www.moma.org/calendar/events/3690?locale=en

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 9 November 2017 19:28 (one week ago) Permalink

thank you for your service

mh, Thursday, 9 November 2017 21:36 (one week ago) Permalink

Rewatched the original last night; about as I remembered it, ie good and short of a classic, cuz Sean Young reminded me of Carol Burnett as Joan Crawford, and humanwise [sic] it's saved by Rutger Hauer.

The sequel -- Jesus fuck, what a soporific UGLY pile of waste. I left before Villeneuve's q&a was over. Yeah you had to dive in and make the release date, and it shows.

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 19 November 2017 03:01 (eleven hours ago) Permalink

fair in its way, any highlights from what you saw of the q&a?

we’re in the most monotonous grey waste period of film i’ve lived through right now

mh, Sunday, 19 November 2017 03:42 (ten hours ago) Permalink

Carol Burnett as Joan Crawford was a classic though no?

Philip Nunez, Sunday, 19 November 2017 06:16 (eight hours ago) Permalink

but intentionally funny. Young's look was risible, and her dialogue was making me roll my eyes even in the clips used in the sequel.

D.V. just had a lot of standard praise for Deakins and the effects people, and talked about how he brought in Hans Zimmer late bcz he needed a Vangelis vibe. He needs to go back to doing the stuff he did in Canada.

ice cream social justice (Dr Morbius), Sunday, 19 November 2017 08:41 (five hours ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.