Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

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

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

testtubebaby
Apr 7, 2008

Where we're going,
we won't need eyes to see.


So I'm guessing this is final confirmation that Deckard is ~not~ a Replicant after all?

I said come in!
Jun 22, 2004

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?

Young Freud
Nov 26, 2006

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.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

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.

Spatulater bro!
Aug 19, 2003

Punch! Punch! Punch!

Boy I'm excited for this. Villeneuve is one of the most exciting directors right now, and the trailer looks stellar.

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe
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.

testtubebaby
Apr 7, 2008

Where we're going,
we won't need eyes to see.


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?

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe

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.

Spatulater bro!
Aug 19, 2003

Punch! Punch! Punch!

They could pull a Tron Legacy and have the young Deckard replicant appear in the film.

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe
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.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:
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

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe
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.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:

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.

weekly font
Dec 1, 2004


Everytime I try to fly I fall
Without my wings
I feel so small
Guess I need you baby...



I still have not seen Blade Runner. Which cut is "the correct one?"

Good soup!
Nov 2, 2010

weekly font posted:

I still have not seen Blade Runner. Which cut is "the correct one?"

The Final Cut.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:

Awesome Welles posted:

The Final Cut.

Basebf555
Feb 29, 2008

The greatest sensual pleasure there is is to know the desires of another!

Fun Shoe

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.

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

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.

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:
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

Young Freud
Nov 26, 2006

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.

Theoretically.

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.

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 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

sean10mm
Jun 29, 2005

It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, MAD-2R World

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.)

Kilmers Elbow
Jun 15, 2012

Young Freud posted:

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.

Templant! :science:

(I hated that book)

e: fb

Tuxedo Catfish
Mar 17, 2007

You've got guts! Come to my village, I'll buy you lunch.

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. :v:

Young Freud
Nov 26, 2006

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?

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. :v:

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.

Bugblatter
Aug 4, 2003

Shageletic posted:

edited by Roger loving Deakins.

A risky choice. He doesn't have much experience as an editor.

Tuxedo Catfish
Mar 17, 2007

You've got guts! Come to my village, I'll buy you lunch.

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. :v:

e: not the grammar part, that's just my memory, but I absolutely thought the dude was talking about Deckard even at the time

Shageletic
Jul 25, 2007

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.

Bugblatter
Aug 4, 2003

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

FistEnergy
Nov 3, 2000

DAY CREW: WORKING HARD

Fun Shoe
Just saw the trailer. I had no idea they were making this but now I'm excited!

Neo Rasa
Mar 8, 2007
Everyone should play DUKE games.

:dukedog:

Bugblatter posted:

But he already died in the first one!

That was just his templant. :haw:

caligulamprey
Jan 23, 2007

It never stops.

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.

Cacator
Aug 6, 2005

You're quite good at turning me on.

Young Freud posted:

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.

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.

Bugblatter
Aug 4, 2003

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

Steve Yun
Aug 7, 2003
I'm a parasitic landlord that needs to get a job instead of stealing worker's money. Make sure to remind me when I post.
Soiled Meat

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.

Brosnan
Nov 13, 2004

Pwning the incels with my waifu fg character. Get trolled :twisted:
Lipstick Apathy
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?

LesterGroans
Jun 9, 2009

It's funny...

You were so scary at night.

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.

Spatulater bro!
Aug 19, 2003

Punch! Punch! Punch!

The new Blade Runner will be rated R and won't rely much on CGI.

Mister Kingdom
Dec 14, 2005

And the tears that fall
On the city wall
Will fade away
With the rays of morning light

Please don't suck!
Please don't suck!
Please don't suck!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

blackguy32
Oct 1, 2005

Say, do you know how to do the walk?

Young Freud posted:

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.

I love the final cut except for one thing. It is really hard to make the argument that he is not a Replicant.

  • Locked thread