Blade Runner franchise

A subforum for discussions about Film, TV, and Videos.

Moderators: New Moderators, Board Staff

movieartman
Lilin
Lilin
Age: 26
Posts: 1804
Joined: Feb 24, 2014
Gender: Male

Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby movieartman » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:14 pm

General thread for...
BLADE RUNNER (1982) directed by Ridley Scott
BLADE RUNNER - 2049 (2017) directed by Denis Villeneuve (arrival)
Image

I overlooked the fact that 2049 had even started filming but apparently it's first trailer is rated and will be coming out soon. :bigeyes: ^_^
http://www.bleedingcool.com/2016/12/15/ ... ming-soon/

2049's cast is...
Harrison Ford as Rick Deckard
Ryan Gosling
Robin Wright
Dave Bautista
Ana de Armas
Sylvia Hoeks
Carla Juri
Mackenzie Davis
Barkhad Abdi
David Dastmalchian
Hiam Abbass
Lennie James
Jared Leto

After Arrival's incredible reception, I think it is safe to say we are in good hands with Villeneuve? :headbang:

Bagheera
Banned
User avatar
Posts: 18626
Joined: Oct 15, 2010

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Bagheera » Thu Dec 15, 2016 12:51 pm

Oh, gods damn it. One of the nicest things about BR was the ambiguity of the ending (made all the moreso by the fact that there are four of them), and a sequel can't help but wreck that. Why the heck does it even need a sequel? It's already perfectly awesome the way it is.

Also, Harrison Ford has to have better things to do. After revisiting Indiana Jones and Han Solo, you'd think he'd want to move on to something original for a change.
For my post-3I fic, go here.
The law doesn't protect people. People protect the law. -- Akane Tsunemori, Psycho-Pass
People's deaths are to be mourned. The ability to save people should be celebrated. Life itself should be exalted. -- Volken Macmani, Tatakau Shisho: The Book of Bantorra
I hate myself. But maybe I can learn to love myself. Maybe it's okay for me to be here! That's right! I'm me, nothing more, nothing less! I'm me. I want to be me! I want to be here! And it's okay for me to be here! -- Shinji Ikari, Neon Genesis Evangelion
Yes, I know. You thought it would be something about Asuka. You're such idiots.

Chuckman
Chuckman
Chuckman
User avatar
Age: 34
Posts: 8147
Joined: Nov 11, 2011
Location: Chuckman
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Chuckman » Thu Dec 15, 2016 1:00 pm

He must want to do these things. Not like he couldn't just retire.

So I guess Deckard is officially not a replicant now?

Guy Nacks
Test Subject
Test Subject
User avatar
Posts: 2772
Joined: Nov 28, 2012
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Guy Nacks » Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:34 pm

The only downside I see with this so far is that Vangelis isn't returning to compose the score. Other than that, it looks like it's going to be good.
Among the people who use the Internet, many are obtuse. Because they are locked in their rooms, they hang on to that vision which is spreading across the world. But this does not go beyond mere ‘data’. Data without analysis [thinking], which makes you think that you know everything. This complacency is nothing but a trap. Moreover, the sense of values that counters this notion is paralyzed by it.

And so we arrive at demagogy. - Hideaki Anno, 1996

movieartman
Lilin
Lilin
Age: 26
Posts: 1804
Joined: Feb 24, 2014
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby movieartman » Thu Dec 15, 2016 2:46 pm

View Original PostGuy Nacks wrote:The only downside I see with this so far is that Vangelis isn't returning to compose the score.

Agreed, that said Jóhann Jóhannsson's score on Sicario was great so the film should have decent music regardless.

My primary hope is that they don't just remake/homage the original film like Force Awakens/Prometheus.

Director Black
Ireul
Ireul
User avatar
Age: 18
Posts: 664
Joined: Apr 03, 2016
Location: Jahogal
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Director Black » Sat Dec 17, 2016 12:58 am

View Original PostBagheera wrote:Harrison Ford has to have better things to do. After revisiting Indiana Jones and Han Solo, you'd think he'd want to move on to something original for a change.


Harrison Ford is a go-to man when you need him as part of a franchise that you can milk money out of, whether the outcome successfully (Star Wars), horrible (Indiana Jones), or up in the air (Blade Runner).
Anywhere Can Be Paradise as Long As I Have the Will to Live...

...after all, I am Alive, So I'll Always Have the Chance to Be Happy.

CommanderFish
Sachiel
User avatar
Age: 17
Posts: 233
Joined: Jul 31, 2016
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby CommanderFish » Sun Dec 18, 2016 5:24 pm

Bagheera wrote:Also, Harrison Ford has to have better things to do. After revisiting Indiana Jones and Han Solo, you'd think he'd want to move on to something original for a change.

I'm pretty sure he said that he actually wants to revisit Blade Runner.
I do somewhat share your sentiment, though.
"The fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth"

movieartman
Lilin
Lilin
Age: 26
Posts: 1804
Joined: Feb 24, 2014
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby movieartman » Mon Dec 19, 2016 11:00 am

The Teaser has a arrived...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=haXvp8M9Cog
Visuals & tone seem right. ^_^

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
Age: 23
Posts: 6048
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: USA
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Ray » Wed Dec 21, 2016 5:29 pm

http://www.screendaily.com/news/blade-r ... 13.article

Looks like it's going to be R-Rated.
I’ll escape now from this world, from the world of Jean Valjean, Jean Valjean is nothing now! Another story must begin!

Avatar:
Phew, I’m not tense anymore… now I’m just miserable.
People say "be yourself" but that's bad advice, if we were all to "be ourselves" many of us would stop wearing clothes. -Chuckman

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
Age: 23
Posts: 6048
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: USA
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Ray » Thu Dec 22, 2016 3:03 pm

Metalhead and the world's biggest Blade Runner fan The Rageaholic gives his take on the ailer.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E7yWdPiKZl4

"Best case scenario? It will be totally respectful, jaw-dropping, action packed. . . and totally UNNECESSARY."

He goes on to say that he's not too excited about the actor they have playing the new lead. He is interested to see where the screenwriter will take the movie, given he has unfinished business with the movie as Ridley Scott's final film was vastly different from the original script.

There's also the fact that Dekkard having actually aged, seems to answer the question that the last film specifically made a nebulous and should never answer. Namely that the question of his humanity is pretty obvious given androids don't age.

As for me personally? I'll go see it, but I'm fairly certain it will fail to live up to the original, even if it's good. But what can?

Much like The Lion King . The original Blade Runner was one of those movies that was The Perfect Storm of people coming together at the right time to make something timeless and unique. Even if this remake does manage to by some miracle not be god-awful? It still won't have the soul of the original., and still won't solve the problem of Hollywood's lack of originality and terrible addiction to risk avoidance.
I’ll escape now from this world, from the world of Jean Valjean, Jean Valjean is nothing now! Another story must begin!

Avatar:
Phew, I’m not tense anymore… now I’m just miserable.
People say "be yourself" but that's bad advice, if we were all to "be ourselves" many of us would stop wearing clothes. -Chuckman

movieartman
Lilin
Lilin
Age: 26
Posts: 1804
Joined: Feb 24, 2014
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby movieartman » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:18 pm

As for the whole Deckard is a replicant theory, this reviewer breaks down in detail the evidence, why it doesn't work and why the film is better off for it not to the case.
- http://www.1000misspenthours.com/review ... runner.htm

Now let’s talk about that unicorn. Ever sinceBlade Runner first appeared, observant viewers have been arguing over whether or not Rick Deckard was supposed to have been a Replicant himself. Even the original theatrical version contains plenty of subtle clues to that effect. Like the Replicants he hunts, Deckard keeps a collection of photos which have no apparent connection to his own life. He is as emotionally flattened as any android, and at one point, Rachel asks him bitterly whether he had ever taken the Voigt-Kampf test himself. And in what might be the most important clue, Bryant tells Deckard that there were six Replicants in the rebel band at first, but that the accidental death of one of them leaves Deckard with only four to bring down. Any first-grader could tell you that there’s an android unaccounted for there, and the threat from Bryant that convinces Deckard to sign back on makes a lot more sense if we postulate that Deckard himself is the Replicant in question, and thus liable for execution under the law. That would also explain why Bryant gets in touch with Deckard by having Gaff arrest him. These days, Ridley Scott is on record as saying that Deckard is a robot, and that business with the unicorn is supposed to be the evidence that proves it. Here’s how it works: Everywhere Gaff goes, he leaves little origami figures behind him— a chicken in Bryant’s office, a little man with a gargantuan cock in Leon’s hotel room, etc.— and at the end of the film, Deckard finds an origami unicorn in his flat, and knows thereby that Gaff paid it a visit while he was at the Bradbury; his aim, presumably, had been to retire Rachel, yet unaccountably he chose not to do so. We’re supposed to read the fact that Gaff left Deckard a unicorn in particular the same way we read it when Deckard earlier confronted Rachel with some of the memories that were downloaded into her brain from Tyrell’s niece, to conclude that Gaff knows Deckard dreams about unicorns because at some point, he talked to the person who programmed Deckard’s brain. Purportedly, Scott had wanted to include the dream sequence in the original cut, but had to drop it from the shooting schedule because of time constraints.

     Whether it’s the case or not that Scott meant Deckard to be a Replicant from the get-go (the evidence is somewhat inconclusive), I’m glad he left the matter so vague (and thus easy to discount and dismiss), even in the director’s cut. Simply put, it weakens the film tremendously if Deckard isn’t human. For one thing, it makes mincemeat of Blade Runner’s thematic thrust by removing the central irony that Deckard, the natural-born man, is infinitely colder and deader inside than even Leon, the most brutal and debased of the Replicants. It also undercuts the intensely moving scene on the roof of the Bradbury between the beaten Deckard and the dying Roy. But worse yet, if Deckard is a Replicant, then the movie makes no logical sense. Remember— Rachel is an experimental prototype, a Nexus 6.1, so to speak. If Deckard is an android, he obviously doesn’t know it himself, yet the technology that makes Rachel’s lack of self-awareness possible has only just been introduced; under the terms which the rest of the story has established, there’s no way for Deckard not to know what he is. In the novel, the implantation of false memories in androids is a routine practice, but we have been explicitly told that that isn’t the case in the world of the film. We might also ask how, if Deckard possesses Replicant strength and agility, a scrawny little sex-bot like Pris has such an easy time beating his ass in hand-to-hand combat. Meanwhile, if we assume, as Scott subtly invites us to, that Deckard is the unaccounted-for sixth hijacker, then why doesn’t he remember being in on the caper, and why the hell don’t any of the other Replicants recognize him?!?! It’s ridiculous, and given the choice between concluding that Blade Runner is ridiculous and concluding that the ridiculousness lies only in one misguided interpretation of it, I’m going to go with the latter, no matter what Ridley Scott has to say on the subject.

movieartman
Lilin
Lilin
Age: 26
Posts: 1804
Joined: Feb 24, 2014
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby movieartman » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:26 pm

View Original PostRay wrote:Even if this remake does manage to by some miracle not be god-awful?

Direct Sequel not a remake & from what I have heard about Arrival and Denis Villeneuve's other films (I have only seen Sicario which was great) I don't think there Is ANY chance of the film being bad let alone awful unless the studio butchers it in editing or something or they force it to remake the first film beat for beat which seems unlikely as the plot sounds pretty different.

Thirty years after the events of the first film, a new blade runner, LAPD Officer K (Ryan Gosling), unearths a long-buried secret that has the potential to plunge what's left of society into chaos. K's discovery leads him on a quest to find Rick Deckard (Harrison Ford), a former LAPD blade runner who has been missing for 30 years.[1]

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
Age: 23
Posts: 6048
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: USA
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Ray » Thu Dec 22, 2016 5:38 pm

Okay technically not a reboot. It's a 'sequel boot'. That is a sequel to the original movie that is pretty much functionally identical to a reboot or remake. Save it actually acknowledges and respects the legacy of the previous movie.

But again call it whatever you want. reboot, remakes, Sequel-Boot etc. They are all part of the same problem with the modern-day Hollywood System.

Namely that Hollywood even after so many of them have failed would rather take a chance on a pre-existing brand than actually try to do something original.

How about we let poor Harrison Ford enjoy his retirement and stop dragging him back into roles he's clearly sick and tired of. And instead put Ryan Gosling into new original cyberpunk film Noir movie that pays homage to the original Blade Runner but goes in its own Direction?

But of course Hollywood won't produce anything without some sort of brand-name recognition because in today's Hollywood System being able to say " this is popular it will make money" counts as risk avoidance.
I’ll escape now from this world, from the world of Jean Valjean, Jean Valjean is nothing now! Another story must begin!

Avatar:
Phew, I’m not tense anymore… now I’m just miserable.
People say "be yourself" but that's bad advice, if we were all to "be ourselves" many of us would stop wearing clothes. -Chuckman

CommanderFish
Sachiel
User avatar
Age: 17
Posts: 233
Joined: Jul 31, 2016
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby CommanderFish » Thu Dec 22, 2016 6:46 pm

Ray wrote:Okay technically not a reboot. It's a 'sequel boot'. That is a sequel to the original movie that is pretty much functionally identical to a reboot or remake. Save it actually acknowledges and respects the legacy of the previous movie.

Wait, what? How do you already know that's what this movie is gonna be? Am I missing something, or have you already seen the film somehow or... what?
"The fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth"

Ray
Elder God
Elder God
Age: 23
Posts: 6048
Joined: Feb 10, 2014
Location: USA
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Ray » Thu Dec 22, 2016 6:55 pm

At this point all I can say is I will give it a chance, but I'm not optimistic. That's more than I can say for the Ghost in the Shell remake.
I’ll escape now from this world, from the world of Jean Valjean, Jean Valjean is nothing now! Another story must begin!

Avatar:
Phew, I’m not tense anymore… now I’m just miserable.
People say "be yourself" but that's bad advice, if we were all to "be ourselves" many of us would stop wearing clothes. -Chuckman

CommanderFish
Sachiel
User avatar
Age: 17
Posts: 233
Joined: Jul 31, 2016
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby CommanderFish » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:10 pm

Ray wrote:At this point all I can say is I will give it a chance, but I'm not optimistic. That's more than I can say for the Ghost in the Shell remake.

Okay yeah, that's understandable. I just wouldn't pretend like it's for sure getting the Force Awakens treatment when in reality we really don't know yet.
"The fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth"

Director Black
Ireul
Ireul
User avatar
Age: 18
Posts: 664
Joined: Apr 03, 2016
Location: Jahogal
Gender: Male
Contact:

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Director Black » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:13 pm

View Original PostCommanderFish wrote:Okay yeah, that's understandable. I just wouldn't pretend like it's for sure getting the Force Awakens treatment when in reality we really don't know yet.


To be fair though, Star Wars is a marketable brand that was brought by Disney, so it made sense that people were going to be afraid of it.

From here though...one of the original writers as well as Denis Villeneuve (Coming of the heels of Arrival) on board? That's enough to sell me.
Anywhere Can Be Paradise as Long As I Have the Will to Live...

...after all, I am Alive, So I'll Always Have the Chance to Be Happy.

Bagheera
Banned
User avatar
Posts: 18626
Joined: Oct 15, 2010

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Bagheera » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:38 pm

View Original PostDirector Black wrote:To be fair though, Star Wars is a marketable brand that was brought by Disney, so it made sense that people were going to be afraid of it.

From here though...one of the original writers as well as Denis Villeneuve (Coming of the heels of Arrival) on board? That's enough to sell me.


And if Ford really did want to revisit the character, well, that's kinda the trifecta of recommendations. I'll still be going, "but why?" until I know the plot, but I'll at least give it a chance.
For my post-3I fic, go here.
The law doesn't protect people. People protect the law. -- Akane Tsunemori, Psycho-Pass
People's deaths are to be mourned. The ability to save people should be celebrated. Life itself should be exalted. -- Volken Macmani, Tatakau Shisho: The Book of Bantorra
I hate myself. But maybe I can learn to love myself. Maybe it's okay for me to be here! That's right! I'm me, nothing more, nothing less! I'm me. I want to be me! I want to be here! And it's okay for me to be here! -- Shinji Ikari, Neon Genesis Evangelion
Yes, I know. You thought it would be something about Asuka. You're such idiots.

Gendo'sPapa
First Ancestor
First Ancestor
User avatar
Posts: 4302
Joined: Oct 24, 2006
Location: At the Movies
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby Gendo'sPapa » Fri Dec 23, 2016 10:26 pm

I have the pleasure of being friends with a few members of the crew and over drinks they've actually told me what the general storyline of Blade Runner 2049 is actually about. Nothing overly spoilery but enough to get that these professionals are beyond excited by the project they worked on. As long as Denis Villeneuve delivers on par with his past four films (which by all accounts he is exceeding because this is the first time producers and studio are not pushing or challenging him) we're in for something truly special that deserves to stand alongside the original.

And as is usual people on online communities post their usual vastly uninformed bullshit tirades against "unoriginal Hollywood". There are far better targets for an attack on unoriginality than this.

Let me give one final note: Anyone with a YouTube channel knows fuck all about the filmmaking or creative process. Their insight is useless. Their opinions are entirely formed by what they read in various online forums elsewhere. They are not a good source of opinion or insight. They have zero creative insight and simply cater to whatever their tired online follower fan base is. These are the same dorks who five years ago made angry blog & video posts about how "Mad Max 4 will be garbage because those unoriginal Hollywood hacks are recasting Mel Gibson'a part".

Blade Runner 2049 - get excited. If you want to bitch about unoriginality go talk about Marvel movies which excel by playing to a rule book & being toothless & unchallenging.

CommanderFish
Sachiel
User avatar
Age: 17
Posts: 233
Joined: Jul 31, 2016
Gender: Male

Re: Blade Runner franchise

  •      
  •      
  • Quote

Postby CommanderFish » Fri Dec 23, 2016 11:10 pm

Gendo'sPapa wrote:Let me give one final note: Anyone with a YouTube channel knows fuck all about the filmmaking or creative process. Their insight is useless. Their opinions are entirely formed by what they read in various online forums elsewhere. They are not a good source of opinion or insight. They have zero creative insight and simply cater to whatever their tired online follower fan base is.

I agree and gain anticipation from the rest of your post, but surely you must be exaggerating when you say that "Anyone with a YouTube channel knows fuck all about the filmmaking or creative process", right? Because that just doesn't seem reasonable to me; and if you were to honestly think this, I would be curious as to why.
"The fate of destruction is also the joy of rebirth"


Return to “Film and Video”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests