Blade Runner 2049 Spoilers from post 444

Technocentral · 03-12-2014 11:16PM #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 12:12AM

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

pixelburp · 04-12-2014 09:38AM

"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 01:02PM

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

pixelburp · 04-12-2014 01:20PM

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 01:29PM

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

Technocentral · 04-12-2014 02:07PM

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

the_monkey · 04-12-2014 04:19PM

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 04:55PM

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 05:03PM

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 05:28PM

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 05:30PM

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 05:31PM

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 05:33PM

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 06:46PM

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 06:51PM

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 10:40PM

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 · 04-12-2014 11:04PM

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 · 04-12-2014 11:13PM

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 12:44AM

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 09:48AM

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 09:25AM

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 10:00AM

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 12:13PM

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 07:47PM

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 07:53PM

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 08:11PM

Also, Its going to be full of CGI and ugly

**** this news

happysunnydays · 27-02-2015 09:12PM

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 12:44AM

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 01:06AM

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 12:08PM

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.

Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

Comments

Blade Runner 2049 Spoilers from post 444