Blade Runner 4K UHD (1982)

[KubrickKurasawa]

Has no concept of books

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

Has no concept of books

Now this is insular and impenetrable.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by KubrickKurasawa

Has no concept of books

[Show spoiler]

Larry might have a point.

[Kyle15]

What's a book? We didn't learn about those in 1990 in high school. I'm 60 and this site is all I have, please answer.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by Larry_O

[Show spoiler]Again, people do live outside this place, even if you guys don't! I have never had an account here before this one. What's actually happening, is that you're being a weirdo, Kyle.

That's all it is, LOL. That you percieve my commenting on it directly as someone you all, as a group of older people who live here, have excommuncated from what you clearly think of as the Physical Media Big Brother house; who is trying to orchestrate some clandestine get-back; vs what I am - someone from (waves vaguely at the unknowable void of the larger internet that's clearly not been ventured into by most here since Flash was discontinued) telling you guys that you go from "talkin movies" to "insular, angry, and fairly off-putting at high rates of speed" basically all the time!

It's just weird is all. Just a heads up!

[Larry_O]

Oh you guys and your doing the thing as hard as you can like its a denial of the thing and not a confirmation its so sweaty LOL.

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

Events in 2049 are not relevant to the original Blade Runner. 2049 is a reboot made many, many years later, not truly a sequel. So if 2049 wants to imply Deckard is (or not) a replicant I just don’t consider it meaningful

Originally Posted by spanky87

I would’ve preferred a more faithful re-adaptation of Dick’s book than a pointless sequel to BR (and failed attempt to launch a franchise) that wasted Gosling’s talent.

I don't really understand either of these criticisms - not the idea that 2049 is somehow irrelevant to Blade Runner either narratively or thematically, or that the sequel is pointless (or that it wasted Gosling's talent). Could either of you expand on that to any degree? I can understand straight up not liking it, sure. But to say it doesn't have any relevance to the original, or that there's no point to it at all just doesn't track considering what it's doing (and who was involved in making it for so long, too).

Saying it didn't do what it was trying to do well is one thing. Saying there was no point to it at all I don't get. Nothing the movie does nullifies itself or the prior movie, thematically.

Myself, I'd argue anything that finally got Deakins the Oscar for Best Cinematography doesn't need to justify its existence but hey

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Larry_O

Oh you guys and your doing the thing as hard as you can its so sweaty

Excuse me?

[Telemachus]

Do you like our [Blu-ray.com member]?

It's artificial?

Of course it is!

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Telemachus

Do you like our [Blu-ray.com member]?

It's artificial?

Of course it is!

Must be sweaty.

[spanky87]

Originally Posted by Larry_O

[Show spoiler]Oh you guys and your doing the thing as hard as you can like its a denial of the thing and not a confirmation its so sweaty LOL.





I don't really understand either of these criticisms - not the idea that 2049 is somehow irrelevant to Blade Runner either narratively or thematically, or that the sequel is pointless (or that it wasted Gosling's talent). Could either of you expand on that to any degree? I can understand straight up not liking it, sure. But to say it doesn't have any relevance to the original, or that there's no point to it at all just doesn't track considering what it's doing (and who was involved in making it for so long, too).

Saying it didn't do what it was trying to do well is one thing. Saying there was no point to it at all I don't get. Nothing the movie does nullifies itself or the prior movie, thematically.

Myself, I'd argue anything that finally got Deakins the Oscar for Best Cinematography doesn't need to justify its existence but hey

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Must be sweaty.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

Must be sweaty.

Socks are like any other member, they're either a benefit or an annoyance.

[KubrickKurasawa]

Originally Posted by starmike

Socks are like any other member, they're either a benefit or an annoyance.

LOL!

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by dallywhitty

I didn't exist.

lame

[Trekkie313]

Literally choking on popcorn reading this thread.

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Doomhunter

Events in 2049 are not relevant to the original Blade Runner. 2049 is a reboot made many, many years later, not truly a sequel. So if 2049 wants to imply Deckard is (or not) a replicant I just don’t consider it meaningful

reboot??
it's beyond clearly a direct sequel

[WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW]

Originally Posted by Kyle15

What's a book? We didn't learn about those in 1990 in high school. I'm 60 and this site is all I have, please answer.

Dang you started high school late.

[Jay H.]

Originally Posted by WBMakeVMarsMovieNOW

Dang you started high school late.

Alabama.

[ghostof82]

Back in 1982 when I first saw Blade Runner and it flopped spectacularly, fast becoming a cult film most had never heard of, let alone seen, I would never have believed that so many decades later so many people would be talking about it, discussing it, arguing about it. It's such a strange world. This thread is nuts, but it's great.

[suspiciouscoffee]

To be fair I also use the term reboot very liberally. I don’t think it needs to be limited to “movies which reset the nerd canon timeline” because that’s not really a useful metric of anything. It’s a Blade Runner story about a new young blade runner years later and not necessarily beholden to strict continuity or following any cliffhanger. It’s fine to call it a reboot. It being a sequel isn’t mutually exclusive with rebooting, the brand or whatever had been turned off for decades and is turned back on again. If you reboot a computer you’re just turning it on, you’re not necessarily doing a factory reset.