What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Blade Runner 2049 (1 Viewer)

Yeah, like I said, I recoiled at the thought of the sequel until I heard that Villaneuve was directing.
Great to see Han Solo again - but Gosling? In all seriousness, does he have the range for this, or is he just going to sneer and smirk his pretty little face for two hours, cause that would suck for this film.

Aesthetics/cinematography , with this team behind it, look like they could be killer.

 
Great to see Han Solo again - but Gosling? In all seriousness, does he have the range for this, or is he just going to sneer and smirk his pretty little face for two hours, cause that would suck for this film.

Aesthetics/cinematography , with this team behind it, look like they could be killer.
Gosling is better than most pretty boy A list actors, so he doesn't bother me.

 
Great to see Han Solo again - but Gosling? In all seriousness, does he have the range for this, or is he just going to sneer and smirk his pretty little face for two hours, cause that would suck for this film.

Aesthetics/cinematography , with this team behind it, look like they could be killer.
I don't disagree, Gosling is an odd choice but perhaps there is method to the madness.

IIRC back in 1982 Ford was primarily known for American Graffiti, Star Wars series and Raiders of the Lost Ark series. Hardly material with high dramatic range

 
Gosling is better than most pretty boy A list actors, so he doesn't bother me.
It's not that he is a bad actor so much as doesn't seem to bring depth nor range - not that I am a Gosling afficienado, I just think of him in Drive and a bit one note.  This movie COULD have so much depth to it if done correctly. 

 
If he's a Replicant, how did he defeat his mortality? Is that a clue to what the story is about our does it just resolve Blade Runner's most lingering question.

 
It's not that he is a bad actor so much as doesn't seem to bring depth nor range - not that I am a Gosling afficienado, I just think of him in Drive and a bit one note.  This movie COULD have so much depth to it if done correctly. 
Gosling was really good in Blue Valentine.

 
Gosling was really good in Blue Valentine.
Didn't see it, so admittedly going off what I have, which ain't much.

Let's hope I'm pleasantly surprised.  Certain have nothing against Gosling and would love to see this hit all the notes. 

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
He's going to play the old man version of all his characters? Looking forward to the sequel of American Graffiti where he drives Uber passengers around SoCal.
He could drive Suzanne Somers to her next shopping network gig. In a convertible of course.

 
Wait, I didn't know Gosling was in this. 

:megamovieboner:

IMO, anyone who says he doesn't have range hasn't seen many of his movies.  Just stuff like Blue Valentine, Half Nelson, and Believer showed me he's one of the better actors working today.  Plus he's dreamy... 

 
You don't have to do that.  It just got by me.  It's pretty good?
Well, it's film noir masquerading as a sci-fi movie. People mistake it for an action movie sometimes and it can come across as "boring" if not watched with the right frame of mind.

And it has to be watched in the right context - it came out in 1982 but has a look way ahead of its time.

In short - yes, it's really good. 

 
saintfool said:
i'll bite because of the whole production team. Villaneuve directing? Scott producting? Yep, I'll go.
#### Yeah!  I'm am sooooo in.  Saw the original in the theater back in '82.  Changed my life.  That and The Road Warrior.

 
Well, it's film noir masquerading as a sci-fi movie. People mistake it for an action movie sometimes and it can come across as "boring" if not watched with the right frame of mind.

And it has to be watched in the right context - it came out in 1982 but has a look way ahead of its time.

In short - yes, it's really good. 
But which version should he watch?

 I vote "no voiceover director's cut"

 
Well, it's film noir masquerading as a sci-fi movie. People mistake it for an action movie sometimes and it can come across as "boring" if not watched with the right frame of mind.

And it has to be watched in the right context - it came out in 1982 but has a look way ahead of its time.

In short - yes, it's really good. 
It's just really good?  Bit disappointed, Dufresne.  It is THE seminal sci-fi movie and one of the greatest movies ever made.

 
holy #### guys, there are multiple versions?
Seven different versions of Ridley Scott's 1982 American science fiction film Blade Runner have been shown, either to test audiences or theatrically. The best known are the Workprint, the U.S. Theatrical Cut, the International Cut, the Director's Cut[6] and the Final Cut. These five versions are included in both the 2007 5-disc Ultimate Collectors Edition and 2012 30th-Anniversary Collector's Edition releases. There also exists the San Diego Sneak Preview Cut, which was only shown once at a preview screening and the U.S. Broadcast Cut, which was edited for television broadcast.

In the 2007 documentary Dangerous Days: The Making of Blade Runner, there is a reference to director Ridley Scott presenting a nearly four-hour-long "early cut" that was shown only to studio personnel.

 
I was lucky enough to have seen the Director's Cut before the original release version (was no final cut yet).  When I then watched the theatrical release, along with it the narrative, it was terribly underwhelming.  Really felt the narrative kinda dumbed the whole thing down, personally.  

 
I was lucky enough to have seen the Director's Cut before the original release version (was no final cut yet).  When I then watched the theatrical release, along with it the narrative, it was terribly underwhelming.  Really felt the narrative kinda dumbed the whole thing down, personally.  


It did...they were put in later on because studio execs thought people would have trouble understanding it.  Or test audiences had trouble following the plot.  Can't remember exactly but the VOs were there for dummies.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top