Blade Runner 2049 is an upcoming American neo-noir science fiction film directed by Denis Villeneuve and written by Hampton Fancher and Michael Green. It is the sequel to Blade Runner, starring Ryan Gosling and Harrison Ford, who is reprising his role as Rick Deckard, with Ana de Armas, Jared Leto, Sylvia Hoeks, Robin Wright, Mackenzie Davis, Carla Juri, Lennie James and Dave Bautista in supporting roles. The film is set for release in the United States on October 6, 2017 wiki
35 years after the legendary Bladerunner we will (finally) get a sequel. The official trailer dropped today and it looks promising. What do you guys think?
i think its really cool that the original Blade Runner was set in 2018 and we're almost there. All those failed predictions about amazing space travel capabilities in the 1970s are giving the flat earthers something of a victory.
Will in all likelyhood not be be able to even remotely touch the first one but I'll definately watch, should be atleast a visually interesting blockbuster
On May 09 2017 06:48 AngryMag wrote: Will in all likelyhood not be be able to even remotely touch the first one but I'll definately watch, should be atleast a visually interesting blockbuster
i think one of the things that made Blade Runner stand out and develop a cult following in its era is that it was so different in theme and tone from your standard big budget sci-fi movie. In that era it was all hugs, kisses and happy endings with a crystal clear vision of good and evil.
To me Blade Runner feels like one of those films that very much doesn't need any kind of sequel. The film is eerie and asks more questions than gives direct answers. I don't think there's much to add to it without somehow tainting the original in the process. I'd love to have thoughtful scifi in the spirit of the original, but looks like they're building a very direct sequel with Harrison Ford and all. Jared Leto doing another seemingly weird/mysterious character doesn't seem too original either.
The trailer doesn't look awful even if a little overblown in action, but I find it very hard to get excited about this nevertheless.
lots of interesting predictions of future technology in the original but they didn't see the whole anti-smoking thing sweeping through every level of government from municipal to state to federal.
On May 09 2017 17:08 Bacillus wrote: I don't think there's much to add to it without somehow tainting the original in the process. I'd love to have thoughtful scifi in the spirit of the original, but looks like they're building a very direct sequel with Harrison Ford and all.
when you say "original" do you mean the version released to theatres in 1982 that had Harrison Ford narrating? or 1 of the several altered endings that came out 10+ years later on special DVD revisions of the 1982 movie?
i think the decades long war over "artistic vision" going on between Ridley Scott and whoever the executive producers were has already tainted the original.
Personally i don't quite understand why people are always against sequels/more stories in the same universe. You can totally tell a lot of interesting stories in the same one, it's all about the quality of the writing.
if Harrison Ford as Deckard is still alive in 2049 then i guess he is not a replicant. in 1 of the alternate endings it is strongly suggested he is. i think Ridley Scott wanted him to be a replicant.
if you look at how campy and totally fucking crap detectives were in that era with guys like "Lieutenant Columbo", "Magnum PI", and "Jim Rockford" i'd say this movie is as innovative to the detective story as Led Zeppelin was to 60s hearts-and-flowers free-love formulaic-Beatles music.
The war between Ridley Scott and his employers gave the Blade Runner mythos an extra dimension over several decades that can't be manufactured.
how many Hollywood movies made before 1982 has 2 guys engaged in a deep kiss?
"is this testing whether i'm a Replicant ... or a lesbian Mr. Deckard"
On May 09 2017 17:08 Bacillus wrote: I don't think there's much to add to it without somehow tainting the original in the process. I'd love to have thoughtful scifi in the spirit of the original, but looks like they're building a very direct sequel with Harrison Ford and all.
when you say "original" do you mean the version released to theatres in 1982 that had Harrison Ford narrating? or 1 of the several altered endings that came out 10+ years later on special DVD revisions of the 1982 movie?
i think the decades long war over "artistic vision" going on between Ridley Scott and whoever the executive producers were has already tainted the original.
Yeah. You have a point in some way. I've been quite fortunate to only see the final cut. Nevertheless, there's still a big difference between slight variations of a cut and building around a totally new storyline in addition to the original.
On May 09 2017 22:12 The_Red_Viper wrote: Personally i don't quite understand why people are always against sequels/more stories in the same universe. You can totally tell a lot of interesting stories in the same one, it's all about the quality of the writing.
Many movies are just fine with sequels. Star Wars and even Indiana Jones are suited for that kind of stuff just fine. Meanwhile Blade Runner was left vague on purpose and it works better because of that.
I'd be totally fine with another film set in Blade Runner universe. There's plenty of interesting stuff to explore. Meanwhile the story of Deckard is exactly where it should be at the end of Blade Runner, it's very hard to see what kind of meaningful thing they could add to it without breaking the intentionally undisclosed storylines in multiple places.
Quality writing can stand just fine on its own too. Meanwhile a sequel to a film that very much doesn't need one reeks of lack of creativity in many ways. I do hope I'm wrong, but at this point it's kind of like Led Zeppelin suddenly released Stairway to Heaven part 2.
i don't think the variation between the 1982 theatrical release and the final cut can be considered "slight". its a substantial departure from the original.
in the theatrical release Deckard is not a replicant. in 1 of the various DVD DIrector's Cuts Deckard is a replicant. specifically the line by Rachel "have you ever taken that test yourself" never appears in the theatrical version. Also, in the theatrical release Deckard/Ford narrates throughout the movie. It changes the movie substantially.
of course, constantly teasing an alternate ending that shows Deckard as a replicant drives up DVD sales and causes lots of activity among the cult following the movie/franchise has.
On May 10 2017 09:08 JimmyJRaynor wrote: i don't think the variation between the 1982 theatrical release and the final cut can be considered "slight". its a substantial departure from the original.
in the theatrical release Deckard is not a replicant. in 1 of the various DVD DIrector's Cuts Deckard is a replicant. specifically the line by Rachel "have you ever taken that test yourself" never appears in the theatrical version. Also, in the theatrical release Deckard/Ford narrates throughout the movie. It changes the movie substantially.
of course, constantly teasing an alternate ending that shows Deckard as a replicant drives up DVD sales and causes lots of activity among the cult following the movie/franchise has.
Fair enough. I'm very much grasping the straws without having seen the different cuts.
Is it actually implied in the theater cut that Deckard isn't a replicant? The cut I've seen has quite strong suggestion of him being one through the unicorn connection at least, but even there it's never confirmed all the way.
In the book he isn't, as far as I've understood. I do wonder what kind of canon the new film has.
Director Denis Villeneuve has been very ambiguous about which version of Blade Runner (1982) is used as canon for his sequel
Yeah not pissing fans off is more important nowadays than creative clear writing <.<
I agree to Bacillus, I vastly prefer new stories set in an interesting settings over sequels to told stories. You don't need to retcon, you don't need to make a modern movie with old characters. The problem with Rogue one was the execution of the characters and story, not that the setting didn't work.
I get that people like characters and want to see them again, but Deckard was more of a blank identification character anyways. Telling a shadow runner-esque story in the setting could definitely work f.e..
I also dislike a sequel for the things that are associated with blade runner, the old movie has asked it's questions about sentient AI. I'm not sure how you do a philosophical story in the same setting without replicating it.