Which is better: Blade Runner or Blade Runner 2049
- Thread starter jml4life
- Start date
HF's haircut makes him resemble Will Farrel.
Both
Jeepers! - Original buy a mile.
"I am not in the Business; I am the Business"
'I don't know such stuff ... I just do eyes ... I make your eyes'
"
'Pris!'
"I want more life, @#$%$ !"
"Like Tears in Rain ..."
"I am not in the Business; I am the Business"
'I don't know such stuff ... I just do eyes ... I make your eyes'
"
'Pris!'
"I want more life, @#$%$ !"
"Like Tears in Rain ..."
I don't think it's a choice, do both. 2049 is a sequel anyway
Blade Runner is a much better movie. Blade Runner 2049 is also a beautiful but slicker looking movie with great production value. It's milking its visuals which makes the whole movie rather slow and a bit of a snore fest. Blade Runner 2049 let me down in terms of the story. I didn't find it very compelling, especially compared to the outstanding original. It adds nothing new and feels more like a reboot than a sequel. The ambiguity of the original, is the protagonist a replicant or not, is completely lacking. The relationship between of Deckard and Rachel in the original was compelling. K's relationship with the hologram AI was completely uninteresting. Blade Runner 2049 expands on themes and some of the characters from the original but it doesn't elevate the original in any way. The best thing I can say about Blade Runner 2049 is that it's a competently made movie that did treat the world of the original with respect and didn't retcon anything or inject any current sensibilities.
Blade Runner, 9/9
Blade Runner 2049, 7/10
Blade Runner, 9/9
Blade Runner 2049, 7/10
The theatrical cut from 1982 was 110 minutes long.
The Director's Cut is from 1992. That's the one without the voiceover but with the happy ending while also raising the question whether or not Deckard is a replicant. Scott himself distanced himself from that cut because he wasn't all that involved. The Director's Cut was a cash grab. This cut is 116 minutes long.
The Final Cut from 2007 which has some errors fixed, some more scenes added, the sound and image were restored and remastered. Dark scenes were considerable brightened. This cut was released in theaters. This cut is 117 minutes long.
I didn't think anybody would care.
Director's cut, DVD from 1997. Back then it wasn't known that this was not really the version Scott had envisioned.
Last edited:
The original was an entertaining sci-fi treat! It had a lot going for it and remains one of my favorites to rewatch.
The second was a good story but very slow. I enjoyed it but not as much as the OG with Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer!
For the most part I am not a fan of sequels. But I can be lured in if the original was stellar.
The second was a good story but very slow. I enjoyed it but not as much as the OG with Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer!
For the most part I am not a fan of sequels. But I can be lured in if the original was stellar.
Regarding the voiceover/narration that only the theatrical version of Blade Runner has, it was added against Scott's will because the studio felt the average audience was too dumb to understand the movie without it. As far as the ambiguity goes whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant, maintained since 2000 hat Deckard was a replicant and there are several clues in the movie that support that. Harrison Ford said Deckard was human. The movie is ambiguous and the issue has been discussed for over 40 years without a concrete conclusion. Blade Runner 2049 does not come clean about what Deckard is and there is no good explanation how he is still alive if he's a replicant. After all, Nexus-6 models have a limited 4-year lifespan.
“ It’s too bad she won’t live, but then again, who does? The Original.
Oh, Gaff is back for one scene.
The original of course.
The sequel was good overall, the visuals were fantastic IMO, but fell short on the story. Not sure why they had to make the son also a replicant hunter. They almost re-told the original story and the “plot twist” could be seen almost immediately if you watched the original.
The sequel was good overall, the visuals were fantastic IMO, but fell short on the story. Not sure why they had to make the son also a replicant hunter. They almost re-told the original story and the “plot twist” could be seen almost immediately if you watched the original.
When Rachel 2.0 was shot in the sequel my two H.S. buddies shouted "That was not necessary!" and agreed it ruined the film.
We were young adults in the 80's, coming of age. Kicked out of the nest and living in dumpy apartments north of Boston. VCR tape rentals hit the East Coast big time.
We must have re-screened that flick 20 times - along with various noir classics from the 40's, And of course Das boot, Mad Max, Raiders, The Terminator, Blood Simple, Videodrome, Raising Arizona, Blue Velvet, Poltergeist, The Evil Dead II, An American Werewolf in London, The Fly, The Toxic Avenger ... ... ... .
We were young adults in the 80's, coming of age. Kicked out of the nest and living in dumpy apartments north of Boston. VCR tape rentals hit the East Coast big time.
We must have re-screened that flick 20 times - along with various noir classics from the 40's, And of course Das boot, Mad Max, Raiders, The Terminator, Blood Simple, Videodrome, Raising Arizona, Blue Velvet, Poltergeist, The Evil Dead II, An American Werewolf in London, The Fly, The Toxic Avenger ... ... ... .
Plot is nowadays favored over a good story because it enables lazy writing but plot-driven stories always feel contrived. Things happen because otherwise we don't have a story.
K is not Deckard and Rachel's son. He thinks he is because of an implanted real memory but is later told the truth by Freysa: Deckard and Rachel have a daughter named Ana. Deckard meets Ana at the end of the movie.
Like I said, it almost feels like a soft reboot. Not a whole lot of new material was added in terms of story and nothing in terms of themes.
