Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

«13456727

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 11,613 ✭✭✭✭ Skerries


    I do not want to see things you people wouldn't believe are so bad


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,693 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    "Never go back": Blade Runner is cinematic lightning in a bottle, even then it took a couple of attempts before we got the 'right' version, despite people's claims they prefer the one with voiceover and happy ending. The film is as famous for the story of its making as it is the quality of the material on-screen.

    It doesn't need a sequel, and there's nothing it can achieve except - at best - be completely underwhelming and just not quite as good as the original. IMO, Ridley Scott himself has lost much of the zip and energy his younger self had, in fact his constant retreading of historical dramas betrays a desperation to make another 'Gladitor', and these days Harrison Ford just turns up and collects his pay-cheque.

    To quote Tyrell himself, the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and Blade Runner's light burned out long long ago. Trying to reignite that moment would just seem ... disrespectful.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,987 ✭✭✭ Technocentral


    Yeah right, you two will be first in line on opening day!


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,693 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Yeah right, you two will be first in line on opening day!
    Based on what assumption? I love Blade Runner, it was the second DVD I ever bought (that spartan featured, cardboard-covered release from years ago) and it's a bona fide cinematic legend, but I haven't been waiting for a sequel because it never needed one - and certainly not 32+ years after its first release. Enigmatic ending or not, it was a perfectly encapsulated film, beautifully balanced. In another universe it was a spectacular failure, soon forgotten.

    Look at what happened when everyone involved with the Indiana Jones franchise returned too long after the fact. Or, more recently, the Sin City sequel nobody wanted. Or the Star Wars prequels. Hell, Scott himself should be more than familiar with the concept of returning to old ground with Prometheus. There's something about returning to the creative well that it only works within a certain timespan; Blade Runner 2 can only hope to disappoint. Plus, to be blunt, I don't rate Scott as a filmmaker anymore, he seems to have gone completely off the boil.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,873 ✭✭✭ Wossack


    As a big BR fan, Im entirely lukewarm about this news


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 5,987 ✭✭✭ Technocentral


    Its going to be fantastic, you people will rue the day you dissed it publicly!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭ the_monkey


    I remember another great Ridley Scott film called Alien - and Ridley returned to direct a "prequel" to that and we all know how that turned out.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,693 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    Its going to be fantastic, you people will rue the day you dissed it publicly!

    Uhm, the movie doesn't exist yet, there's nothing to diss - or get hyped about. I'd love to think Blade Runner 2, or any sequel to a great film, might stand as an equal to the original, but precedent says otherwise. Skepticism at least keeps unrealistic expectations in check :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,315 ✭✭✭ Soft Falling Rain


    the_monkey wrote: »
    I remember another great Ridley Scott film called Alien - and Ridley returned to direct a "prequel" to that and we all know how that turned out.

    It turned out to be only decent, but not the turkey some like to portray it as. I'd describe it as a worthwhile venture that ultimately went awry. Hopefully its sequel will be bolder than it's predecessor.

    As for Scott, I think while his enthusiasm for expanding on the worlds he created is admirable, I think he needs to stop at this stage. His recent work has been consistently flat, whether that's down to external forces such as studios and writers is not important. What is important however that he seems to no longer have to the spirit to overcome these obstacles.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,987 ✭✭✭ Technocentral


    the_monkey wrote: »
    I remember another great Ridley Scott film called Alien - and Ridley returned to direct a "prequel" to that and we all know how that turned out.

    Really liked Prometheus, so great!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,556 ✭✭✭ the_monkey


    Really liked Prometheus, so great!


    My god ... fair enough - but did you see Alien at all ?

    if so what did you think ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,987 ✭✭✭ Technocentral


    pixelburp wrote: »
    Uhm, the movie doesn't exist yet, there's nothing to diss - or get hyped about. I'd love to think Blade Runner 2, or any sequel to a great film, might stand as an equal to the original, but precedent says otherwise. Skepticism at least keeps unrealistic expectations in check :)

    To be fair to me, I'm mild compared to Star Wars freaks, some saying as soon as they'd seen the Falcon in the trailer that they are going to be first in the queue. At least I have Harrison Ford and possibly Ridley directing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,987 ✭✭✭ Technocentral


    the_monkey wrote: »
    My god ... fair enough - but did you see Alien at all ?

    if so what did you think ?

    You are joking!! Alien is one of my favourites of all time, seen it about 20 times, I'm a sci fi fan since I was a kid in the 70s.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,919 ✭✭✭ spacecoyote


    Given Scott confirmed in an interview many moons ago that in the movie Decker is an android, how can he be in the sequal if they have a lifespan of 4 years or something like that?

    I guess they could have him as a dying android quite close after the last movie ended that's degenerated as it closes in on its expiration date...or is he just a new Decker completely that looks older & could have had memories implanted in ...

    Or am I just overthinking things


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,449 ✭✭✭ charlie_says


    This kind of thing irritates most fans of seminal originals for several reasons I think. First off the likelihood of pulling off a better or even equal film is pretty slim in reality. Audiences are different now and the reliance and normilazation of CGI really makes it hard to recreate the wow factor of pre CGI day movies with special effects. Secondly this eternal remaking/rebooting/sequels is really pissing off film fans worldwide and ruining American cinema.

    Saying that though people still buy tickets to these films in the millions all around the world. The marketing guys obviously know their ****.....and what do I know!

    Anyway I'd be cautiously pessimistic about this, but undoubtedly would see it in the cinema pretty soon to release day just out of curiosity if it goes ahead.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,443 Bipolar Joe


    Given Scott confirmed in an interview many moons ago that in the movie Decker is an android, how can he be in the sequal if they have a lifespan of 4 years or something like that?

    I guess they could have him as a dying android quite close after the last movie ended that's degenerated as it closes in on its expiration date...or is he just a new Decker completely that looks older & could have had memories implanted in ...

    Or am I just overthinking things

    I wouldn't say so, this is exactly what I was thinking, so I figure others are, too. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense.


  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,693 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    To be fair to me, I'm mild compared to Star Wars freaks, some saying as soon as they'd seen the Falcon in the trailer that they are going to be first in the queue. At least I have Harrison Ford and possibly Ridley directing.

    Yeah, but, at least there was a trailer. This has ... nothing. Just crazy old Ridley Scott thinking he might do Blade Runner 2 'cos he has literally run out of new ideas :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,528 ✭✭✭✭ dreamers75


    When i seen this (**** nearly 30 years ago) as a kid my mind wanted to see
    I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.

    bear in mind I was about 10 and this **** was awesome to me.

    Now i dont think i want to see any of that, the movie is perfect as it is. Will still watch it tho


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭ Adamantium


    Well seeing as this thing might be going ahead (oh god why?); if they can't get Vangelis back to score, they should go for Kavinsky. Daft Punk's orchestral/electronic score was the best thing about Tron Legacy. We might as well get something good out of it.




  • Registered Users Posts: 1,138 ✭✭✭ Decuc500


    I always think a new Ridley Scott film is something to look forward to.
    He’s so good at creating a world and immersing the viewer in it.
    With the right script and Scott directing I’d really look forward to this.

    I don't get the hate for Prometheus. I thought it was a fascinating if slightly flawed sci-fi movie.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 27,693 Mod ✭✭✭✭ pixelburp


    So Deadline are reporting this is still going ahead, with Denis Villeneuve taking the directors chair from Ridley Scott, shooting a script by Hampton Fancher. Harrison Ford is also apparently confirmed as returning to the Deckard role. :(

    This still feels like a really poor, ill-conceived idea that can only hope to underwhelm. The idea of the beautiful narrative ambiguity that was Blade Runner's ending being expanded upon feels wrong on some many levels of storytelling.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 30,309 Mod ✭✭✭✭ .ak


    Ideally it could be a very good movie just set in the universe, with hopefully Ford just providing a small cameo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,084 ✭✭✭✭ TheDoc


    Would agree strongly with pixel. The need for Hollywood to create sequels of reboots to cash in on cinema goers nostalgia is getting sickening at this stage.

    I was too young to see it on release( or probably not born yet) but when I did watch it, and then subsequently the various release version to the point of the complete one, I'd great appreciation for this film and what it entailed.

    It never left me hungry for a sequel or left questions unanswered. I'll probably go see it as normal, but sometimes I wish they would just let a good thing lie.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭ Adamantium


    Harrison Ford said the sequel has the best script he has ever read (I'm not sure I believe his judgement), it must be quite something to pull him back into something with Ridley Scott and co again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,915 ✭✭✭ emo72


    My favourite all time too. It will probably be crap, but there's a chance it will be good. It's a good start they got Villeneuve to direct rather than Scott. That film he did with Hugh Jackman was great. Characters! It's all about them, and tell a story too. As for the visuals, that's the easy part nowadays. How do you do the music though. Vangelis was awesome.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,832 ✭✭✭ nix


    Also, Its going to be full of CGI and ugly :(

    **** this news


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 247 ✭✭ happysunnydays


    nix wrote: »
    Also, Its going to be full of CGI and ugly :(
    Got the inside track do you? ..the Bladerunner world was never beautiful...its a dystopian future. Denis Villeneuve is directing now ....solid guy! Scott has lost the magic touch....goodbye.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,546 ✭✭✭ Agricola


    nix wrote: »
    Also, Its going to be full of CGI and ugly :(

    **** this news

    Yeah thats what I was thinking too. Leaving aside all script/plot issues, you just know this will be a complete CGI fest from frame one. The original looked so great because of the limitations of the time. It was a living, breathing future on screen. This will have a huge budget and most of it will be spent on OTT visuals more than likely. Another tiresome rollercoaster ride.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,832 ✭✭✭ nix


    Got the inside track do you? ..the Bladerunner world was never beautiful...its a dystopian future. Denis Villeneuve is directing now ....solid guy! Scott has lost the magic touch....goodbye.

    I mean that it will be mostly just drenched in CGI, making it another ugly film that will look extra ugly/dated in a few years.

    Unlike the original which has no cgi and looks amazing to this day.

    See above post.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,661 ✭✭✭✭ Tony EH


    Given Scott confirmed in an interview many moons ago that in the movie Decker is an android, how can he be in the sequal if they have a lifespan of 4 years or something like that?

    I guess they could have him as a dying android quite close after the last movie ended that's degenerated as it closes in on its expiration date...or is he just a new Decker completely that looks older & could have had memories implanted in ...

    Or am I just overthinking things

    Deckard being an android has always been a stupid idea and one that Scott has been trying to jimmy into 'Blade Runner' for years after the picture was actually made.

    But, it makes zero sense to have Deckard as a replicant.

    It makes even LESS sense to have him as a replicant that can become an OAP.

    That would be just about the most stupidest thing I have seen in a sci-fi film. Especially one that considers itself to be serious.


Advertisement