Did it really need a sequel?
It was beautiful. I mean, it looked beautiful...even if there was one part that made me motion sick, but even that part was beautiful. And that, I think, was really more of a lighting thing than a set design thing or a special effects thing.
Honestly, you remember the lighting in this. You remember it the way people remember the lighting in an Edward Hopper painting.
But did it need a sequel?
The acting was great, it really was.
There was honestly no real flaw as to how the movie looked, how it was directed, or how it was acted. It was pleasing...
...but it was also kind of empty. So, did it need a sequel? Questions were answered, but those questions were best left as questions weren't they? The little mysteries that fueled debate that made the first film so...talked about, even if it was initially hated.
Why did those questions need to be answered? They were better left as little mysteries to ponder.
And the result is the empty feeling you get when a really fun problem is finally solved. There is that A-HA moment of adulation...and than that little depression when you realize the mystery is finally over and you can move on.
From now on the questions will be officially answered and as it doesn't hurt this movie, it doesn't take away from the film as a singular entity, it kind of kills the first film.
Now we know it all and because of that, the first Blade Runner will never have the same feeling when you watch it.