Blade Runner 2049 Spoilers from post 444

Technocentral · 04-12-2014 12:16am #1

Would be great news, my favourite film ever, would be great being back emersed in that fantastically realised world with him at the helm:

https://uk.yahoo.com/movies/ridley-scott-i-could-still-direct-blade-runner-104242760001.html

Skerries · 04-12-2014 1:12am

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

pixelburp · 04-12-2014 10:38am

"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.

Technocentral · 04-12-2014 2:02pm

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

pixelburp · 04-12-2014 2:20pm

Technocentral wrote: »

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.

Wossack · 04-12-2014 2:29pm

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

Technocentral · 04-12-2014 3:07pm

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

the_monkey · 04-12-2014 5:19pm

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.

pixelburp · 04-12-2014 5:55pm

Technocentral wrote: »

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

Soft Falling Rain · 04-12-2014 6:03pm

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.

Technocentral · 04-12-2014 6:28pm

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!

the_monkey · 04-12-2014 6:30pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Really liked Prometheus, so great!

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

if so what did you think ?

Technocentral · 04-12-2014 6:31pm

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.

Technocentral · 04-12-2014 6:33pm

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.

spacecoyote · 04-12-2014 7:46pm

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

charlie_says · 04-12-2014 7:51pm

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.

Bipolar Joe · 04-12-2014 11:40pm

spacecoyote wrote: »

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.

pixelburp · 05-12-2014 12:04am

Technocentral wrote: »

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

dreamers75 · 05-12-2014 12:13am

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

Adamantium · 05-12-2014 1:44am

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.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT0iQRjHbW4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41_svUt5_e0

Decuc500 · 05-12-2014 10:48am

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.

pixelburp · 27-02-2015 10:25am

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.

.ak · 27-02-2015 11:00am

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

TheDoc · 27-02-2015 1:13pm

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.

Adamantium · 27-02-2015 8:47pm

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.

emo72 · 27-02-2015 8:53pm

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.

nix · 27-02-2015 9:11pm

Also, Its going to be full of CGI and ugly

**** this news

happysunnydays · 27-02-2015 10:12pm

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.

Agricola · 28-02-2015 1:44am

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.

nix · 28-02-2015 2:06am

happysunnydays wrote: »

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.

Tony EH · 28-02-2015 1:08pm

spacecoyote wrote: »

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.

happysunnydays · 28-02-2015 2:11pm

nix wrote: »

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.
.

Sorry man! ...I get you now. Yeah nothing can beat the physical sets and the actors prefer them too...gets them into the world appartently!
Was watching a bit of the new Total Recall last night, in one sense the scale was impressive for the car chase but it seems like sometimes these Cgi built environments can't get the physics or lighting exactly spot on....has this fakeness to it and ends up taking from the viewer experience......then on the other end the 'Fifth Element' got it very spot on and they had less of the technology that they have now.

Technocentral · 28-02-2015 9:52pm

I predict it's going to be a real humdinger!

MfMan · 02-03-2015 11:31am

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

Can't agree. It makes the film wonderfully ambiguous, 'setting a thief to catch a thief'. For me, it's what makes the unicorn-dream sequence a moment of genius.

"How can it not know what it is?"

humanji · 02-03-2015 11:56am

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

In fairness, he was never trying to jimmy it into the original. It was there and the studios insisted it be jimmied out. I much prefer it. It adds so much more to the story and gives the characters more weight. Especially when you take that according to the documentary, Tyrell was also a replicant.

But how they're going to fit Deckard into this one is beyond me. Of all the scenarios I can think of, none come out sounding too good at all. I'd love it to be even half as enjoyable as I found the original, but I just can't see that happening. Hope I'm wrong.

Tony EH · 02-03-2015 2:22pm

It wasn't in the book and it wasn't in the original script. None of the actors were aware of Deckard even possibly being a replicant or even thinking about it.

It's definitely a case of Scott trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

I think it's just silly and completely unnecessary.

Tony EH · 02-03-2015 2:34pm

MfMan wrote: »

Can't agree. It makes the film wonderfully ambiguous, 'setting a thief to catch a thief'. For me, it's what makes the unicorn-dream sequence a moment of genius.

"How can it not know what it is?"

But, it's not. It's just stupid when you actually think about it.

First of all, Ford never plays Deckard as a replicant. He shows genuine emotion throughout the film as well. Not only that he can be sarcastic, hateful and funny too. All abilities that are beyond the latest Nexus 6 model, or even Rachel, who's a pet project of Tyrell.

He's noticeably weaker than the robots he's chasing and only gets the better of the by fortune or the intervention of some other character. Every replicant is on the verge of defeating him with the greatest of ease.

Roy has to rescue him in the end and is visibly far superior in strength.

Why send a shit robot after other far stronger robots? That's just fücking dumb.

Plus, the police dept. get Deckard in because they want the old magic back. The old magic. That implies that they've known Deckard for a long time. It would would require the entire police dept. to in on a conspiracy if Deckard was a robot.

Again, that's just dumb.

I think it may have been muted by Scott that Deckard could be a replicant half way through making 'Blade Runner', but rightly the studio thought that that was a stupid idea and I agree with them. Clearly Ford thought it was dumb and certainly not a thing that was discussed with him prior to shooting. M. Emmet Walsh (who plays police chief Bryant) also thought that the idea was thick, when he was asked about it in an interview years a decade after the film was released.

If people are happy with the "he is" or "is he or isn't he", that's all well and good. But the film couldn't work for me on that level. But it'll be a real problem, if Deckard DOES in fact turn out to be a replicant in 'Blade Runner II', because at 72 Ford is noticeably older than he was in in 1982 and that will just be about the dumbest thing of all.

humanji · 02-03-2015 2:56pm

Tony EH wrote: »

It wasn't in the book and it wasn't in the original script. None of the actors were aware of Deckard even possibly being a replicant or even thinking about it.

It's definitely a case of Scott trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

I think it's just silly and completely unnecessary.

It was in the original script, put there by the writers. They didn't even intend to. Each thought it was the other who came up with the idea and both ran with it. When they brought the idea to Scott, he loved it. But the studio insisted on the happier ending. There's an interview with the writers somewhere, that I'll try to dig out.

It's thematically in tune to the original story, which the first cut wasn't. It's about what it means to be human, and how the replicants are more human than the actual humans. All the emotions they're not meant to feel, they feel. But the human characters don't, and their lives are shown to be empty as a result. Even Deckard believing he was human was enough to hold him back.

Both versions can stand up to scrutiny, but the replicant Deckard version isn't as unbelievable or silly as you make it out to be.

if Deckard DOES in fact turn out to be a replicant in 'Blade Runner II', because at 72 Ford is noticeably older than he was in in 1982 and that will just be about the dumbest thing of all.

And that I fully agree with. It would be hilarious, though.

Tony EH · 02-03-2015 4:13pm

humanji wrote: »

It was in the original script, put there by the writers. They didn't even intend to. Each thought it was the other who came up with the idea and both ran with it. When they brought the idea to Scott, he loved it. But the studio insisted on the happier ending. There's an interview with the writers somewhere, that I'll try to dig out.

I've read Francher's original script and I certainly do not recall anything definite about Deckard being a replicant.

But, later Francher said that the question is ok, but the answer will be stupid.

humanji wrote: »

It's thematically in tune to the original story, which the first cut wasn't. It's about what it means to be human, and how the replicants are more human than the actual humans. All the emotions they're not meant to feel, they feel. But the human characters don't, and their lives are shown to be empty as a result. Even Deckard believing he was human was enough to hold him back.

In the novel, Deckard is 100% human. But he does have another detective check him out. All the way through the novel however, he struggles with his humanity and dreads the idea of killing a human by mistake and that the job is making him colder and less emotional. Like the robots he's killing. The robots in the book aren't half as philosophical as they are in the film, but they're just as cold and uncaring.

humanji wrote: »

Both versions can stand up to scrutiny, but the replicant Deckard version isn't as unbelievable or silly as you make it out to be.

I don't think the "Deckard is a replicant" holds up well at all.

humanji wrote: »

And that I fully agree with. It would be hilarious, though.

It would be a disaster and destroy another part of Ridley Scotts film legacy. He's already dented Alien with the, frankly, stupid 'Prometheus' and having a "robot" OAP Deckard would kill 'Blade Runner' in a single instant, regardless of where one stands on the robot Deckard thing.

But, he certainly wouldn't be the first director of that generation to go back and undo all the great work they did. That's for sure.

Mickeroo · 02-03-2015 4:17pm

Scott could make the sequel a family comedy, maybe give Deckard a talking animal sidekick and I still don't think it would undo any of the great work he did in his earlier career.

pixelburp · 02-03-2015 5:12pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Scott could make the sequel a family comedy, maybe give Deckard a talking animal sidekick and I still don't think it would undo any of the great work he did in his earlier career.

I don't think that's completely true: yes, all versions of the original Blade Runner will continue to exist. Any sequel, poorly handled, will only sully the ambiguity and mystery that forms a large part of the 1982 film's cultural impact. Part of the whole success of Blade Runner in the first place revolves around that inconclusive ending, the teased notions of whether Deckard truly was a replicant. A sequel could end up being a very clumsy, ill thought out postscript to one of the more perfectly self-contained universes in cinema

Technocentral · 02-03-2015 5:56pm

Odd how people can't wait for a seventh Star Wars film but baulk at a second BR

pixelburp · 02-03-2015 6:04pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Odd how people can't wait for a seventh Star Wars film but baulk at a second BR

They're two completely different (sets of) films, based on two completed different modes of storytelling. What's your point?

Technocentral · 02-03-2015 6:09pm

pixelburp wrote: »

They're two completely different (sets of) films, based on two completed different modes of storytelling. What's your point?

Point is simple, new film and director for SW films welcomed positively but for new BR only negative comments. I'm looking forward to it if no one else is.

pixelburp · 02-03-2015 6:30pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Point is simple, new film and director for SW films welcomed positively but for new BR only negative comments. I'm looking forward to it if no one else is.

I just don't follow, just seems like simplistic cherry-picking. Star Wars is a saga, a series of sci-fi myth - it's literally episodic. Episode VII doesn't surprise because that's the genetics of the narrative, the clue's in the title. Blade Runner is a self-contained, once off story about the human condition that warrants no return to the universe because ostensibly it was never written as a precursor to a longer form.

If anything, Blade Runner's legacy is less about the story, and more about the setting. It has been the catalyst for future visions and sci-fi as a whole since its release, to the point where a sequel could simply appear as derivative of other sources, despite being the originator of it all - look at 'John Carter'.

to be honest, most comments I've read haven't been negative, they've been head-scratching expression of "Huh? Really? Why?"

_Kaiser_ · 02-03-2015 7:32pm

Tony EH wrote: »

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.

Meh, it's been/being done..

Fully agree though - just as with this new Terminator film, it makes no sense in the context of the story and is just an attempt by the studio to shoehorn in the original actor for the nostalgia fans and boost box office takings (although at least they're not talking about castrating Deckard I suppose)

And also just like the new Terminator film, it's a movie no-one asked for

These reboots/prequels/watered-down CGI-overload films of the past 10-15 years really need to die a death.

karaokeman · 02-03-2015 10:05pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Point is simple, new film and director for SW films welcomed positively but for new BR only negative comments. I'm looking forward to it if no one else is.

But the new Star Wars trilogy has been hinted at for over 30 years due to reports of the saga being a 9-part series. News of a Blade Runner sequel has only came around quite recently, so fans are more likely to have accepted it as a standalone film.

Technocentral · 02-03-2015 10:53pm

_Kaiser_ wrote:

And also just like the new Terminator film, it's a movie no-one asked for ï¿¼ These reboots/prequels/watered-down CGI-overload films of the past 10-15 years really need to die a death.

I asked I asked for it!

Nalz · 27-03-2015 4:38pm

Wossack wrote: »

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

elaborate

Skerries · 27-03-2015 5:40pm

Some films just don't need a sequel, end of

Nalz · 28-03-2015 5:31am

Skerries wrote: »

Some films just don't need a sequel, end of

If they can capture what was before then I don't see the problem... It can never alter or change the film before it.

End of :-rollseyes

Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

Comments

Blade Runner 2049 Spoilers from post 444