Now, who were those people?

If I ever buy an exotic sports car I will not let chicks with blue hair lean on it.

Look, a stupid Migos video has more concurrent flying cars than new blade runner movie. Als I'm saying is why'd they skimp so much on cgi flying cars?

Flack wrote: Mon Apr 23, 2018 6:02 pm People in dystopian films have no imagination. Deckard is apparently the only person living in a future Las Vegas and the only thing he does with his time is drink in the hotel. How come nobody ever moves into an abandoned water park?

Yeah what was up with that? At first I thought the hotel bar thing was just a dream or something as lame as the premise was. Nope, Deckard just hangs out here. At least in video games (Fallout 3 for example) you see people living in more interesting abandoned places.. sometimes even with good reasons for being there.

Casual Observer wrote: Mon Apr 23, 2018 3:09 pm After the long slog getting through this, the climax was Harrison Ford getting to meet his daughter who he apparently had with a replicant after the first movie. So the entire point of this seems to be that now humans and androids can mate, at least once, and ...

I think you have this wrong. "Replicants" would be genetically modified humans. An "android" is a machine, and in the case of a science-fiction film, designed to look like a human. Where you say "mate" I presume you really mean "reproduce."

The Tin Man in The Wizard of Oz would be an android, as would the prostitutes in the original 1970s movie Westworld, as is Data in the Star Trek universe and the eponymous Terminator. Replicants in the original Blade Runner had DNA changes to limit their lifespan to 4 years. This means they are not androids; androids are not alive.

I came to the same conclusion. The point of the first film was that even though the replicants were not human, they became "human" when they developed empathy. At the end of the film, the replicants were acting more human than the human (Deckard). They took that same idea and upped it a notch with replicants reproducing, but that opens up a whole lot of issues. If Rachel was specifically made/modified so that she could have children, then what's the big deal? That would be an amazing thing for an android to do, but no more amazing than everything else replicants can already do, no?

People in dystopian films have no imagination. Deckard is apparently the only person living in a future Las Vegas and the only thing he does with his time is drink in the hotel. How come nobody ever moves into an abandoned water park?

Finally saw the new one, only took two evenings to make it through (fell asleep 1/3 of the way the first night). God, what a boring and pointless movie. After the long slog getting through this, the climax was Harrison Ford getting to meet his daughter who he apparently had with a replicant after the first movie. So the entire point of this seems to be that now humans and androids can mate, at least once, and . . . . What? Nothing else. They talked a lot about how it would change everything (for I guess the replicants?) but there seemed to be no action or change imminent.

Other observations:
Ryan Gossling: why is he an "actor"? He doesn't act, his entire emotional range is from dead blank blue eyes stare to cute barely smile. I guess women just think he's cute or something.

Harrison Ford: why bother, dude? He was in only the last 1/3 of the movie and barely walked through his lines.

The "special" effects? Don't think they could have done a better job of spending a shitload of money to make the most dreary and boring dystopian future they could imagine. Kind of a cross between the world in Judge Dredd and Wall-E. Also, for an overcrowded planet, where are all the people? How come in the city there's no traffic at all? So the cars fly in this future but apparently there are only like 3 of them. Just the cops have cars I guess but even then why so few? How is this a police state with so few officers flying around. The little town I live in has I think maybe 4 police trucks, how is it the same for a gigantic dystopian city?

Verdict: total waste of 2 hours and 5.99 rental price.

Casual Observer wrote: Tue Oct 24, 2017 3:57 pm I was about to ask something similar but it was going to be more like, "Hey guys, will the new Blade Runner put me to sleep like the original one did?" I love scifi so it should have been a favorite of mine but I just have never been able to stay awake for the entire film.

Ah-Ha! Finally someone else with the same experience watching the original as me. I'd like to see this new one though. It's already played at my local theater but will probably end up at the discount one before long a city next door.

So Motorhead and Blade Runner are not getting the best of reviews at the moment on the ole forum, sirs.

Not going to see it. There's nothing that a new Blade Runner can improve upon the old Blade Runner except more money for the studio. Some movies don't need more story.

Casablanca 2: What happens in Lisbon stays in Lisbon...

The Wizard of Oz 2: Ozzier than ever...

The French Connection 2: Popeye Goes To Hell....

Ghostbusters 2...er, oops....

THE
NON SEQUEL
AARDVARK

I was about to ask something similar but it was going to be more like, "Hey guys, will the new Blade Runner put me to sleep like the original one did?" I love scifi so it should have been a favorite of mine but I just have never been able to stay awake for the entire film. It's like Dune for me in that respect. I want to see the new one but since i'd certainly have a drink or two before the show I'd hate to be the guy snoring in the back by the end of the film.

Looks like this will be a solo production on my part. How is it?