First saw it was I was about 7 years old, I shared a room with my older brother and he was watching it late one night and i was captivated by it (I should have been sleeping), and when I say ‘I saw it’ that’s literally what it was as he had his headphones on. Don’t think I saw it again til a few years later and got to listen to it as well, I think 10 year old me liked the voiceover because I was stupid and didn’t know what was going on. Watched it a couple of years ago (the ‘final, final, yes this is defo the last cut’ cut at the harbour lights cinema and it still holds up. Very excited about 2049.
2 Likes
Denis Villeneuve directing and Roger Deakins as DP. safe hands 
1 Like
First off I’m amazed that it’s been covered, although really it is another interpretation of the novel.
Now looking forward to seeing it (and then watching the old/original pretty soon after and I bet most do.). Tried getting my partner to watch the first one so she can compare it to the new and she thought it was better not to watch the old one because she has no intention of watching the new. Fair do’s.
Still astonishing how good it looks.
The director’s cut is the only version I’ve seen. I’ve no real interest in the theatrical release, mostly because it fucks with the room for interpretation, The unicorn is not exactly screaming out that Deckard is a replicant, but you can take that from the film should you wish.
It’s a shame then, that Ridley Scott has pretty much committed the same sin in interviews as them meddling studio bosses did with his picture. There’s no room for interpretation in his version of events, which pretty much poops on the subtlety he tried so hard to establish. You’ve ultimately got to believe Ridley Scott; it’s not like he didn’t leave enough clues, even in the original.
The film introduced the possibility of replicants that don’t know they are replicants, which Deckard pretty much has to be for the replicant Deckard to work. It’s all there if you’re confident enough to make the assessment. I know people go apeshit over this movie, and I understand why. Just a bit gutted to have not been there at the time. It was one of the first DVDs I’d ever owned - that was the first time I ever saw it.
2 Likes
Peter Bradshaw is usually pretty reliable as a critic. I’m pretty hyped
Yeah, all well and good but did he like the movie?
The problem i have is that Mrs D_P hasnt seen any of the first film(s)
Obviously my plan is to be at the Imax at dawn next Friday but will she sit through it without knowing the delight of the original story.
If I go alone she will eventually catch up but will have missed the big screen experience.
Strange they didn’t let Netflix have the film for us to remind ourselves.
Hi hum.
That’s the key Phil - the big screen.
Sitting in a cinema watching the opening cityscape scenes of Blade Runner accompanied by the amazing audio is one of the great film experiences.
You can put aside any wobbly plot or complex narrative, Scott created a visually stunning and plausible new world.
It’s also difficult to believe that it was just shot in a small room with models and a smoke machine!
3 Likes
First off I’m amazed that it’s been covered, although really it is another interpretation of the novel.
Now looking forward to seeing it (and then watching the old/original pretty soon after and I bet most do.). Tried getting my partner to watch the first one so she can compare it to the new and she thought it was better not to watch the old one because she has no intention of watching the new. Fair do’s.
In all fainess it was brave of @cellone to tackle a remake of his original post after the first one has been held up by critics as a classic.
While this latest post clearly borrowed from the iconic original, I thought the subtle nods to nostalgia through lighting and plot, and the limited use of CGI gave the new post a fresh feel while remaining loyal to the spirit of the book - and in years to come, many may regard this remake as a worthy addition to the future forum boxsets.
So for me, not a classic like the first post, but a great remake.
9 Likes
I’m lost, remind me did the original original have the voiceover saying what was going on?
There were 3 originals.
HTH
Yes, Yes, I and I have 3 or 4 versions on DVD but what was the first original.
Was it really released in 1982? Wow, I seem to remember watching the original in the cinema but we were stationed in Germany at the time so it was either that or on VHS!!
I would like it known that the use of CGI was more of a subtle enhancement that I felt the original had lacked. The development of CGI over those eighteen hours was considerable and I felt that the changes brought more of the book to life.
I can understand why anyone would question the idea off a remake and in truth I’m the same. It was more of a board decision taken by my cunt of a phone.
Rumours of a third Director’s cut version are true but at the moment I’m working on other projects, so anything like that will have to remain on the back burner for now.
In all honesty I’m just glad the second version has been recieved so well.
One Cell
3 Likes
Ooh I do like the idea of resurrecting Firefly or Serenity 
Please
Lots of rumours that Karl Urban’s Dredd may come back as a TV show rather than a movie
Hmm could also make a case for a sequel to Lucy
Sorry side tracked by clicking a link to the Japanese slaggng off Hollywood for stealing their stories and the horrid remake of Ghost in the Shell
Tickets booked for tomorrow
Already collected tickets + purchased suitably loud and annoying snacks, but saving my voice so I can loudly commentate for everyone and smugly point out subtle references to the original.
Looking forward to it…