|
The teaser trailer just came out, so I figured it was time for my most anticipated block-buster of 2017 to have a thread about it. What you need to know: Denis Villeneuve, coming off a streak of stellar movies, like Enemy, Prisoners, Sicario, and the best sci-fi movie of the year, Arrival, is directing Ryan Gosling, and a certain haggard helicopter pilot from a script from Hampton Fancher, credited with the screenplay of the original Blade Runner, and cinematography by Roger loving Deakins. Ridley Scott is only exec producing this one, so it might fare better than the controversial Prometheus. The IMDB blurb: quote: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. Additional photo, with a link where Gosling talks about what Ford's role might entail: http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2016/12/12/ryan-goslings-funny-story-about-being-punched-in-the-face-reveals-key-blade Here's the teaser: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDscTTE-P-k Lot's of things to discuss here, including the fact that I just learned that Jared Leto is in this one as well. Holy lol. Shageletic fucked around with this message at 00:55 on Dec 21, 2016 |
# ? Dec 20, 2016 16:16 |
|
|
# ? Jun 3, 2024 22:41 |
|
So I'm guessing this is final confirmation that Deckard is ~not~ a Replicant after all?
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 16:19 |
|
zenintrude posted:So I'm guessing this is final confirmation that Deckard is ~not~ a Replicant after all? It's possible however super unlikely that he was built to not have an expiration date, but yeah I am going with he isn't a replicant. Could replicants even be built without an expiration date?
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 16:23 |
|
I said come in! posted:It's possible however super unlikely that he was built to not have an expiration date, but yeah I am going with he isn't a replicant. Could replicants even be built without an expiration date? Theatrical cut said yes. The thing I hope they go with is something brought up in the K.W. Jeter books, that the replicants are built off templates of human beings, that, like Rachel, they're sort of clones with added genetic engineering. That way, Deckard in the first film could still be a replicant but you have his template still around.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 16:35 |
|
I said come in! posted:It's possible however super unlikely that he was built to not have an expiration date, but yeah I am going with he isn't a replicant. Could replicants even be built without an expiration date? I always thought the dates were a way to control beings that were essentially a better version of humanity.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 16:39 |
|
Boy I'm excited for this. Villeneuve is one of the most exciting directors right now, and the trailer looks stellar.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 16:57 |
|
If you'd told me 2 years ago I could choose any director to direct two major sci-fi films back to back, Villenueve would have probably been my #1 choice even above Scott himself. This really couldn't be more perfect.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 16:59 |
|
Young Freud posted:The thing I hope they go with is something brought up in the K.W. Jeter books, that the replicants are built off templates of human beings, that, like Rachel, they're sort of clones with added genetic engineering. That way, Deckard in the first film could still be a replicant but you have his template still around. But why would he look different, older?
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 17:38 |
|
zenintrude posted:But why would he look different, older? The Deckard in this film is a real person, the template that the Deckard in Blade Runner is based on. So not the same version as the one we saw in the original. Theoretically.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 17:42 |
|
They could pull a Tron Legacy and have the young Deckard replicant appear in the film.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 17:45 |
|
Honestly I'd have preferred to have a complete reboot starring Gosling and just leave Ford out of it. I love Ford but his time is past and at this point its even odds as to whether he's going to add or subtract from a film like this.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 17:50 |
|
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep also heavily implies that the replicants are all based on templates of naturally born humans, and getting replicant replacements for specific pets is commonplace for folks with money.Shageletic posted:I always thought the dates were a way to control beings that were essentially a better version of humanity. This is basically correct. What we glean from all versions of the movie is that the replicants sort of start to lose it after about four years, so the four year lifespan is built into them to help keep them from revolting. But of course as the movie progresses we realize it's less that they "lose it" and more that around age four they start to develop a natural range of emotions beyond what's initially programmed into them, and those new emotions tend to lead to "why am I not being treated the same as any other person." Why was I created only to do lovely work, etc. It gets a little muddy though in an interesting way because in all versions of the movie Tyrell and Batty have a pretty accurate conversation that implies that they literally cannot create a Nexus 6 replicant that can live longer than four years. We don't learn with certainty whether Tyrell is full of poo poo or not but in the theatrical version they say Rachel is special and has no life limit which we assume means she'll age and eventually die the same as a human would. So in the theatrical version Tyrell is full of poo poo, in later versions we don't get a full enough picture about how the more human emotional capacity of the Nexus 6 from their inception to know for sure. In either one the Nexus 6 is them flying too close to the sun, wanting to have it both ways where their replicant is emotionally indistinguishable from a human even under rigorous testing while still being restricted by the life span and still being assigned to dangerous/unpleasant occupations. I think it's interesting how if you watch the documentary about Blade Runner on the final cut, what we see in this trailer and read about the opening of the film is very very very very similar to how Blade Runner was originally planned to begin, but with Gosling where Deckard would have been. Which makes me wonder if Harrison Ford will actually be killed off five minutes in. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Dec 20, 2016 |
# ? Dec 20, 2016 19:10 |
|
Ford is securing his retirement, going from franchise to franchise and making sure his character gets killed off so that nobody can bother him when he's in his 80s. All he needs to do now is get killed in the upcoming Indiana Jones sequel.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 19:24 |
|
Basebf555 posted:Ford is securing his retirement, going from franchise to franchise and making sure his character gets killed off so that nobody can bother him when he's in his 80s. All he needs to do now is get killed in the upcoming Indiana Jones sequel. Then just when he least expects it, The Mosquito Coast 2049 enters production.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 19:29 |
|
I still have not seen Blade Runner. Which cut is "the correct one?"
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 19:40 |
|
weekly font posted:I still have not seen Blade Runner. Which cut is "the correct one?" The Final Cut.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 19:43 |
|
Awesome Welles posted:The Final Cut.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 19:53 |
|
weekly font posted:I still have not seen Blade Runner. Which cut is "the correct one?" If you're looking for the version that would be considered Ridley Scott's completely un-tampered with vision, definitely The Final Cut.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 19:53 |
|
Neo Rasa posted:I think it's interesting how if you watch the documentary about Blade Runner on the final cut, what we see in this trailer and read about the opening of the film is very very very very similar to how Blade Runner was originally planned to begin, but with Gosling where Deckard would have been. Which makes me wonder if Harrison Ford will actually be killed off five minutes in. According to set reports, Harrison Ford was only there for a brief time. I don't think he's going to last too long in the movie.
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 20:29 |
|
LMAO if it's really just like that original intro though. In the original concept you see a figure walking across a massive converted flatland kind of area like that (IIRC vast farmland, with so much of the US irradiated it's concentrated into these automated agriculture centers or whatever) who then enters a home where a guy is stirring some soup. That also figures with when Ford was first announced and it was said that his role would be very small. I'm assuming his death is the catalyst for whatever goes down in the movie.
Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Dec 20, 2016 |
# ? Dec 20, 2016 21:04 |
|
Basebf555 posted:The Deckard in this film is a real person, the template that the Deckard in Blade Runner is based on. So not the same version as the one we saw in the original. Exactly. IIRC, the Jeter books the Nexus templates were either exceptional people (the "templant" for Roy was apparently some crazy special forces guy with weird pain centers in his brain they copied who shows up in the book) or scrubs that signed their rights away. Or, in Rachel's case, a clone or what they call a "persynth" of Tyrell's niece. The "persynths" idea kind of brought back from PKD's book, with the police station manned entirely by replicants and that the replicants are slowly replacing humanity. Neo Rasa posted:This is basically correct. What we glean from all versions of the movie is that the replicants sort of start to lose it after about four years, so the four year lifespan is built into them to help keep them from revolting. It explains why the four replicants start acting in opposite ways, with Zhora being the sex show stripper, Pris becoming more conniving and downright brutal toward men, Leon's pictures displaying an artistic soul, and of course, Roy's empathy in saving Deckard at the end. Neo Rasa posted:It gets a little muddy though in an interesting way because in all versions of the movie Tyrell and Batty have a pretty accurate conversation that implies that they literally cannot create a Nexus 6 replicant that can live longer than four years. We don't learn with certainty whether Tyrell is full of poo poo or not but in the theatrical version they say Rachel is special and has no life limit which we assume means she'll age and eventually die the same as a human would. More like Tyrell can't alter what is already put in place, the genetic killswitch is something that they can't get rid of once the replicant has left the development stage. Presumably, it could simply be left out of special one-off models like Rachel. I would also say that, in the opening text crawl, that the "four-year lifespan" killswitch was imposed following the replicant uprisings, so it probably stands to reason that those pre-uprising replicants had normal human lifespans prior to being wiped out and Tyrell implanting the killswitch. Young Freud fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Dec 20, 2016 |
# ? Dec 20, 2016 21:18 |
|
Young Freud posted:More like Tyrell can't alter what is already put in place, the genetic killswitch is something that they can't get rid of once the replicant has left the development stage. Presumably, it could simply be left out of special one-off models like Rachel. I would also say that, in the opening text crawl, that the "four-year lifespan" killswitch was imposed following the replicant uprisings, so it probably stands to reason that those pre-uprising replicants had normal human lifespans prior to being wiped out and Tyrell implanting the killswitch. Exactly, Roy wants a killswitch already in place to be removed, which Tyrell says is impossible (though he might also be a huge liar.) Never installing the killswitch in the first place is a different thing that is never addressed in the director's cut/final cut that I remember (but the lovely theatrical ending says is what they did with Rachel.)
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 22:23 |
|
Young Freud posted:Theatrical cut said yes. Templant! (I hated that book) e: fb
|
# ? Dec 20, 2016 22:44 |
|
Awesome Welles posted:The Final Cut. Related question: which one ends with the "it's a pity you won't live -- but then again, who does?" monologue and the unicorn charm? That's the one I've seen and I'd like to know if my vague recollection of it is of the good cut or not.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 00:24 |
|
Tuxedo Catfish posted:Related question: which one ends with the "it's a pity you won't live -- but then again, who does?" monologue and the unicorn charm? Actually, "It's too bad she won't live - but then again, who does?" But yeah, that's either Director's or Final Cut. I really think all the cuts are good and have something worthwhile. I'm wholly of the opinion that the theatrical cut's exposition track added something to the whole film noir ambiance. I don't even buy the excuse that Harrison Ford sounded bored while doing them, the voiceover matched the whole "cold fish" wandering apathy of Deckard. There's some great lines in that voiceover that it's a shame they're lost like tears in rain. So, really, you should watch the theatrical version followed by the Final Cut.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 00:50 |
|
Shageletic posted:edited by Roger loving Deakins. A risky choice. He doesn't have much experience as an editor.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 00:51 |
|
Young Freud posted:Actually, "It's too bad she won't live - but then again, who does?" The wonders of watching everything on worn-out VHS tapes. e: not the grammar part, that's just my memory, but I absolutely thought the dude was talking about Deckard even at the time
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 00:52 |
|
Bugblatter posted:A risky choice. He doesn't have much experience as an editor. That was a brain fart. He's doing cinematography. Will fix OP accordingly.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 00:55 |
|
Neo Rasa posted:Then just when he least expects it, The Mosquito Coast 2049 enters production. But he already died in the first one! To add something beyond corrections, I'll point out that the building Gosling finds Deckard in has "Luck" written in Korean above its entrance. And also, I am very excited about this movie. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 08:11 on Dec 21, 2016 |
# ? Dec 21, 2016 02:04 |
|
Just saw the trailer. I had no idea they were making this but now I'm excited!
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 04:46 |
|
Bugblatter posted:But he already died in the first one! That was just his templant.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 05:09 |
|
I loved the score to Sicario (I haven't seen Arrival yet but goddamn it, It'll probably be what I do on Christmas), but maaaaaaaaan I figured it might not be Vangelis so I had my fingers crossed Cliff Martinez instead of Johannsson.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 05:47 |
|
Young Freud posted:Actually, "It's too bad she won't live - but then again, who does?" It took me until my fourth viewing of Blade Runner on TV to finally get into the film, and oddly enough it was the original narrated cut that did it for me. Obviously not my preferred version now but it did help me pay attention to what I used to think was a pretty but slow movie. caligulamprey posted:I loved the score to Sicario (I haven't seen Arrival yet but goddamn it, It'll probably be what I do on Christmas), but maaaaaaaaan I figured it might not be Vangelis so I had my fingers crossed Cliff Martinez instead of Johannsson. I wanted Vangelis again too but in interviews Johannsson is fully aware of what he has to live up to and Arrival had a great score too so I have faith.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 06:53 |
|
Hopefully cutting the trailer to the original's soundtrack is an indication of how closely they intend to follow elements of the original soundtrack. Departing from the music would be like making a Star Wars film without John Williams motifs, it's too huge an element of the film's identity. So long as he's faithful to the sound of the synths and the general style, I'm confident Johannson has what it takes to pull it off. I really did not want Vengelis to do it himself though. As perfect as his original soundtrack is, his decades of attempts at creating new music "in the style of Blade Runner" have all fallen flat on their faces. I don't think he still has it in him. Bugblatter fucked around with this message at 08:13 on Dec 21, 2016 |
# ? Dec 21, 2016 08:08 |
|
weekly font posted:I still have not seen Blade Runner. Which cut is "the correct one?" I personally like the "Director's" Cut the most because of how the piano dream is edited, but besides that the Final Cut is fine. Also Final Cut got all the nice remastering, DC didn't.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 09:31 |
|
I saw the Director's Cut when I was probably too young to really appreciate it (I think the lack of v/o made it harder for me to follow back then), so I need to give it a go as an adult. I assume the Final Cut also drops the exposition?
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 19:14 |
|
Brosnan posted:I saw the Director's Cut when I was probably too young to really appreciate it (I think the lack of v/o made it harder for me to follow back then), so I need to give it a go as an adult. I assume the Final Cut also drops the exposition? Yeah, both are great, so whichever you can get your hands on.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 19:19 |
|
The new Blade Runner will be rated R and won't rely much on CGI.
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 20:18 |
|
Please don't suck! Please don't suck! Please don't suck!
|
# ? Dec 21, 2016 23:28 |
|
|
# ? Jun 3, 2024 22:41 |
|
Young Freud posted:Actually, "It's too bad she won't live - but then again, who does?" I love the final cut except for one thing. It is really hard to make the argument that he is not a Replicant.
|
# ? Dec 22, 2016 00:57 |