• Most new users don't bother reading our rules. Here's the one that is ignored almost immediately upon signup: DO NOT ASK FOR FANEDIT LINKS PUBLICLY. First, read the FAQ. Seriously. What you want is there. You can also send a message to the editor. If that doesn't work THEN post in the Trade & Request forum. Anywhere else and it will be deleted and an infraction will be issued.
  • If this is your first time here please read our FAQ and Rules pages. They have some useful information that will get us all off on the right foot, especially our Own the Source rule. If you do not understand any of these rules send a private message to one of our staff for further details.
  • Please read our Rules & Guidelines

    Read BEFORE posting Trades & Request

BLADE RUNNER 2049

There is something about the trailer that wasn't clicking with me but I couldn't figure out what until a friend mentioned it. It feels too polished. There was a grittiness to the original that this one is lacking, and it's throwing me off. I have no doubt the movie will be good (I liked Arrival) but I think this is one of those movies that should have either been shot on film or should have added film grain to the image to muddy it up a bit.
 
Moe_Syzlak said:
My biggest reservation about this is that it seems that it will have to answer the "is Deckard a replicant" question (and I know Scott and Ford have stated their opinions). To me, the open-ended ambiguity is one of the things that makes the original great.
Click to expand...

Fortunately the original will always be there to be taken on its own, without any sequel revelations.

I do think the possibility is very likely, bringing Ford back will make it very hard to skirt around it. I just hope, whichever direction they choose, there's a good, story-based reason for it. Like I don't Deckard to mention he's a replicant once and for that fact to have no relevance whatsoever to the rest of the film.
 
Some comparisons between the original and 2049. Repeating these visuals invites unflattering comparisons, IMO. I mean really, are any of these better than - or even on par with - the iconic originals? For me, the answer is a very firm "no."

I'd rather see something new. I understand that 2049 will want to evoke the original, but this isn't the right way to do it.


mud2y8.jpg


25kix49.jpg


2yvmhag.jpg


2uptyza.jpg
 
New Blade Runner trailer. I'm actually a bit more excited for this now.

 
^ I think I must have finally achieved Kolinahr. Either that, or the trailer just made me feel nothing.
 
When he says "we were being hunted" they should turn it on end and Deckard is really is a human and the replicants have gone Skynet.

I want the movie to be good but so far it's just Ryan Gosling being a complete blank slate and some ok visuals. Remember how trailers are supposed to get you excited for the movie and usually show all the best scenes in them?
 
Based on the trailers, the only plot I can think of is:
(In spoiler tags in case I'm right. Read at your own risk.)


Likely events after the first film but before this one:
Deckard is a human, Rachel was an advanced replicant. They ran off together and conceived. The human/replicant hybrid baby either has a normal human lifespan or is just a cheaper easier way to make replicants, maybe both. Regardless, it is in some way superior to regular replicants in the eyes of the Tyrell corporation. The hybrid is known of by the corporation but after the death of the head honcho they can't replicate his successes. So they're hunting Deckard and his family for bio tech basically. But Rachel's lifespan probably ran out long ago and the child would now be an adult and might be deadly and on the run. I assume that's who the female character is in the trailer who sorta resembles Sean Young. 

The likely plot of this film: 
Ryan Gosling is looking for the hybrid, so is the corporation, but Gosling needs Deckard first to help track her down, which he should be good at as he's a former Blade Runner and also her father.
 
Gross. I hate how cheap posters are now, such a shame. All you can say for these is they are in high definition, poorly composed, lazy and colored with crayons. There is no heart in that poster, it does not say "this movie is going to be awesome" it just says "this is one of the movies you could watch tonight". I do hope that that poster was not made by a human, and I hope whatever made it didn't get paid...too much.

Movie looks cool though.
 
Rogue-theX said:
Gross. I hate how cheap posters are now, such a shame. All you can say for these is they are in high definition, poorly composed, lazy and colored with crayons. There is no heart in that poster, it does not say "this movie is going to be awesome" it just says "this is one of the movies you could watch tonight". I do hope that that poster was not made by a human, and I hope whatever made it didn't get paid...too much.

Movie looks cool though.
Click to expand...

completely agree
 
ThrowgnCpr said:
Rogue-theX said:
Gross. I hate how cheap posters are now, such a shame. All you can say for these is they are in high definition, poorly composed, lazy and colored with crayons. There is no heart in that poster, it does not say "this movie is going to be awesome" it just says "this is one of the movies you could watch tonight". I do hope that that poster was not made by a human, and I hope whatever made it didn't get paid...too much.

Movie looks cool though.
Click to expand...

completely agree
Click to expand...


I still hope somebody will call Drew Struzan.
 
Plot speculation based on trailer (possible spoiler)...

If you've seen the BR docs and stuff you'll know that one of the scrapped concepts from Hampton Fancher's re-written BR script was it cold-opening with a Blade Runner (Deckard I think?) mysteriously meeting a guy at a cabin. Then the Blade Runner kills the guy and it turns out he was a Replicant.

From the 2049 trailer(s), I suspect the Dave Bautista character is that scene re-used for Gosling's character. So Fancher is maybe going to be using all the old rejected concepts he had for BR, that Ridley Scott didn't think were good enough :D.
 
Lots of naughty language and violence so NSFW but very funny...

 
Three short movies made by various directors will bridge the gap between the old movie and the new one.
This is the first one (that I didn't watch yet)

 
I just finished watching the 2036: Nexus Dawn short film, and I have to say that it is quite a beauty. I've been a fan of Luke Scott's work since he directed the short film, Loom with Giovanni Ribisi a few years ago. If you've seen Loom, you can't help but think that it was meant to take place in the world of Blade Runner as well. Nexus Dawn has the same feel as Loom, and Luke Scott does a great job adding to the world his father helped create.

I think any Blade Runner fan will enjoy Nexus Dawn. And for those of you haven't seen Loom, please do. It's a great short and definitely worth the 21minute runtime.
 
Isn't this out in a month!?

Edit: Oh I see. It happened a while ago, but is just now being made public.
 
To me, Blade Runner was fine.  Massively overrated, but fine.

I don't know a single thing about this sequel, other than what I saw in a trailer for it during last night's oblong pigskin ball game.  It looked interesting.
 
TVs Frink said:
To me, Blade Runner was fine.  Massively overrated, but fine.

I don't know a single thing about this sequel, other than what I saw in a trailer for it during last night's oblong pigskin ball game.  It looked interesting.
Click to expand...

I find the original a great film largely because of the ambiguity of Deckard's species (for lack of a better word). I think all a sequel can do is ruin that ambiguity. I guess I can ignore it the same way I've ignored Scott's own answer on the subject.  I hope the sequel is good and provides new existential questions whose answers depend  on who the viewer is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom