Blade Runner 2049
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
Buzz Killington inbound, warning, for grumpy old nerds only....
1. Yeah I'm broken record I know...The first film was noir. In other words we shouldn't learn what happened afterwards to Deckard and Rachael.
2. Do they identify Deckard as a replicant? are they finally going to push that as canon? If so they can go to hell by me.
3. Obviously we have a young "Blade Runner" again... WHY REPLICANTS AGAIN? Is there not a whole PKD style universe to explore with new concepts?
4. What is possibly left to tell? All that can really be told is some kind of emancipation story for replicants? The first film established they were slaves.
5. The first movie BOMBED! it bombed because it's content was not for everyone, definately not for the masses. What is their goal here? Who is their audience?
6. What are they going to do with potraying retro tech to millenials that have never even seen Blade Runner? Have CRTs again?
Honestly I don't know what to think ok? The film is the Sci Fi Citizen Kane!
And of course PKDs original story was still a guiding force.
What is this based on?
Ford returning to these old classic roles is getting tedious. What next John Book?
"Witness 2 Amish Unleashed"?
I am not always easily won over by the usual nerd buttons easily pressed.
Talk me into being excited for this. :lol
1. Yeah I'm broken record I know...The first film was noir. In other words we shouldn't learn what happened afterwards to Deckard and Rachael.
2. Do they identify Deckard as a replicant? are they finally going to push that as canon? If so they can go to hell by me.
3. Obviously we have a young "Blade Runner" again... WHY REPLICANTS AGAIN? Is there not a whole PKD style universe to explore with new concepts?
4. What is possibly left to tell? All that can really be told is some kind of emancipation story for replicants? The first film established they were slaves.
5. The first movie BOMBED! it bombed because it's content was not for everyone, definately not for the masses. What is their goal here? Who is their audience?
6. What are they going to do with potraying retro tech to millenials that have never even seen Blade Runner? Have CRTs again?
Honestly I don't know what to think ok? The film is the Sci Fi Citizen Kane!
And of course PKDs original story was still a guiding force.
What is this based on?
Ford returning to these old classic roles is getting tedious. What next John Book?
"Witness 2 Amish Unleashed"?
I am not always easily won over by the usual nerd buttons easily pressed.
Talk me into being excited for this. :lol
Curmudgeon
Well-Known Member
I'm looking forward to this, but I think Cessna raises some valid questions.. If Deckard is a replicant shouldn't he have died by now?
I'm curious what the tone will be.. I imagine a big part of why the first did so poorly was because Deckard is not really a likable hero character. I feel like that sort of character wouldn't be received very well today.
That said.. I have faith that Villeneuve will give us a thoughtful well made movie. Sicario definitely had a lot of similarities in terms of characters and tone. Plus given that and Arrival, it doesn't seem like he's out to please the masses and blow up the box office.
I'm curious what the tone will be.. I imagine a big part of why the first did so poorly was because Deckard is not really a likable hero character. I feel like that sort of character wouldn't be received very well today.
That said.. I have faith that Villeneuve will give us a thoughtful well made movie. Sicario definitely had a lot of similarities in terms of characters and tone. Plus given that and Arrival, it doesn't seem like he's out to please the masses and blow up the box office.
me 2... same vibe and atmosphere as the original, HIGH hopes for this!!
Looking forward to this!
Outdoor shots in the teaser look great and seem to capture the tone of the original, But the indoor shots seem to be too bright/clean?
Outdoor shots in the teaser look great and seem to capture the tone of the original, But the indoor shots seem to be too bright/clean?
Last edited:
Yes and no.
The information you seek can be found at the propsummit forum.
I just have to warn you that getting this prop can be a hazardous journey.
This one is mine.
Last edited:
SciFiMuseum
Sr Member
Very cool, I am looking forward to this more than I was now that I have seen the trailer!
Partly true.
In 1982 a lot of folks were expecting Han Solo or Indiana Jones. Especially the pacing was different certainly from any Harrison Ford film people knew.
Oh I'm quite aware, was mostly asking if anyone could identify it as a particular maker, or if it looked like it was built the real way. Sounds like they did it right.
The original hero was cobbled from a Charter Arms bulldog frame and a Styer Mannlicher SL receiver. Add a generous sprinkling of greeblie-dust and voila.
As an avid hater of the idea that Deckard is a replicant, I will still back up that I don't think the 4 year life span applies....
Deckard and Rachel were special cases... Rachel was the newest model and took the longest to fail the Voight-Kanpff test... IF Deckard too is a replicant, then we can assume he is a special case like Rachel... I mean he's a replicant created and given memories to kill replicants... let's give him a longer life span.
And clearly Tyrell wasn't worried about breaking rules. In the cut scenes Deckard finds out that Tyrell's real body is frozen and the Tyrell that was killed by Roy was a replicant as well.
"More Human than Human" at what point does the Tyrell Corporation say that a 4 year life span isn't very human.... and start breaking rules.
It certainly isn't very cost effective!
Well,
I will need two things for this to work for me as long as they don't double down on stupid with Deckard as replicant.
A massively compelling reason WHY to portray Deckard again alive and old. Not just some damn cameo of hey new kid, let me show you some old tricks crap. It's got to be critical to the narrative and necessary for a big payoff.
And same for WHY to go down the replicant road again, if that is indeed what this film's story will still be revolving around.
How can they even touch on what they accomplished in 1982 on the subject???? It's beyond elegant!
Perhaps it's just a segue way into something else?
I will need two things for this to work for me as long as they don't double down on stupid with Deckard as replicant.
A massively compelling reason WHY to portray Deckard again alive and old. Not just some damn cameo of hey new kid, let me show you some old tricks crap. It's got to be critical to the narrative and necessary for a big payoff.
And same for WHY to go down the replicant road again, if that is indeed what this film's story will still be revolving around.
How can they even touch on what they accomplished in 1982 on the subject???? It's beyond elegant!
Perhaps it's just a segue way into something else?
