|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:Blade Runner is one of my top 3 favorite sci-fi movies ever and at least right now I am aggressively opposed to this films existence. Maybe I will warm up to it in time, that is happening with Ghost in the Shell. Villenueve though. He hasn't made a bad movie yet, or even a bland forgettable one.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 22, 2016 16:28
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I don't get how the Deckard is a replicant debate is relevant anymore? The Blade Runner 2049 trailer answers this question definitively that no he is not a replicant. It really doesn't answer the question definitively at all. There's a few different possible explanations that would involve him being a replicant.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:There is fan speculation that the Deckard we see here is human but whose attributes and memories were used as a template for the Deckard we see in Blade Runner. But honestly I think you're right and that that's not the case. Were Blade Runner adapted more closely to the plot of the book I'd agree with it, since its explicit in the book that most replicants are based on specific people, but in the movie the Nexus 6 replicants are special because they have memory implants, so this wasn't a typical thing outside of this first wave of them that got made. Ideally they make a compelling film that, whatever answers is does provide, still doesn't quite give us a full picture on Deckard himself because that would be pretty impressive. The other explanation would just be that the Nexus 6 replicants were the first that would be able to grow old and age just like humans. Maybe we'll find out that Deckard lived with Rachel for like 30 years but she eventually died. I'd say maybe she's even still alive but then that would mean they had to hire Sean Young and obviously that's not happening.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 27, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:I think what made Fury Road work where others have failed is that it was still fundamentally George Miller's vision, and because of that he was able to build upon his own universe while moving forward in a new direction. This recent glut of remakes and reboots trip over themselves trying to piece back together the visual referents to the original for so long that they barely have time to contribute anything new. And because they're not directed and/or produced by their creators, there's a certain hesitance to attempt doing different for fear of offending the superfans. And so you get boring, superfluous movies that leave you wondering "what was the point of this" and nobody is happy. I know Prometheus is a controversial film, but I respected Ridley Scott's ambition and willingness to break with slavish Alien references to explore entirely new concepts in the same universe. I think all of this would be relevant to Blade Runner if this weren't Villanueve, but I think I'd literally prefer him directing over Ridley Scott if given the choice. I just love the run that Villanueve is on right now and I'll continue to have complete faith in him until he gives me a reason not to.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 9, 2017 15:26
|
|
|
Villeneuve just signed on to direct a Dune reboot after Blade Runner. The guy's going to explode and become the next Christopher Nolan or these movies will sink his career. Should be interesting, and I'm betting on Villenueve.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 1, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Looks great to me, can't wait.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 19:22
|
|
|
Oz Fox posted:The trailer makes it look like a dumb, overblown action movie with some harrison ford fanservice sprinkled on top. I think there's enough in the trailer that shows this is clearly a Villanueve+Deakins film. So its going to be ridiculously good looking, at the very least.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2017 23:37
|
|
|
CDHiggs posted:It's Harrison Ford. I'm sure the producers are thinking about all of that Force Awakens cash that he brought in, but Star Wars and Han Solo are beloved; Blade Runner and Rick Deckard are far more niche. I think you're right actually. The rest of the trailer that doesn't involve him is all Villenueve and Scott; wide shots and an interesting color palette, nice set atmospheric set design, etc. Then you get thrown right out of that with Harrison Ford Throws a Punch at a Dude.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2017 15:06
|
|
|
The_Rob posted:The great thing though is that Ford sleepwalking in Blade Runner is exactly what his character is supposed to be doing anyway. It's very obvious that's what Gosling is trying to do. I mean, he's suited for it, which I'm sure played a part in his casting, but still its totally appropriate for the part.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 17:51
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:I think that while TFA shows that Han definitely plays dirty, he is cast in a pretty heroic light overall and is given one of the most dramatic sendoffs in the entire series. Deckard by comparison is not even a very likeable dude, and by the end of the movie, it's Roy Batty whom we end up sympathizing with the most. Deckard had obviously changed a lot of his views on his job and what it meant by the end of the movie though, so I don't think its off-base to think he'd be a little more human or even heroic in a sequel.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:Deckard is certainly changed by the end of the film, but thinking about how that would alter his character for a sequel just reminds me of all the reasons why I don't think this movie should have been made. I definitely get where you're coming from on that, but I can see a sliver of a possibility of it working out ok. I kinda like the idea of the changed Deckard having to be the one to teach someone who is just like his old self to appreciate that the replicants aren't just tools that can be simply deemed a "help" or "hazard". Done well I think it could be good, and with one of my favorite working directors on the project, I can't help but keep my hopes up.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2017 19:18
|
|
|
Watched this film for the first time, thought it was good but it didn't fully click with me like Sicario did. But then it started invading my thoughts and I found myself going over it in my head all day at work. Went straight home and watched it again and wow it really popped once I was able to kinda relax and let the visuals wash over me while also being able to pick out tons of little world building bits and even some plot points I missed the first time around. Almost every shot is beautiful but there were a lot of them that didn't hit me the first time for some reason, and I was also able to enjoy the awesome soundtrack a lot more on rewatch. Rewatch this movie, is what I'm saying.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 28, 2017 19:19
|
|
|
Scott is just a person who is always gonna have a strong opinion, that's just his personality. And he's never been shy about saying "we're doing it this way because I'm the loving director and I say that's how we're doing it". So I wouldn't take it personally if I were Villanueve.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
As much as I disagree with some of your points, I have to agree that Leto is by far the weakest part of the movie. Just a dumb idea to go that route with the character.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 21:33
|
|
|
bullet3 posted:Just miscast. Give that same dialogue to a Max Von Sydow or Ian Mckellen and it might work. Leto makes it borderline laughable. Yea that's what I mean, Leto took the dialogue and decided to do something weird with it that just doesn't work at all. It needed to be someone with more gravitas and less surface level weirdness.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 18, 2018 21:44
|
|
|
They don't really have an army yet, it's a rag tag resistance force, and the idea is that the child's existence will inspire others to join them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2018 17:37
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:Thinking about it further, I'm not sure what Wright's motivation to stop Wallace from finding the child is. It isn't like Wallace has the interests of replicants at heart. The only thing killing the child would accomplish is to prevent Wallace from finding her, gutting her, and discovering Tyrell's secret birth mods so he can build a larger slave workforce, the results of which would have made replicant lives worse and, presumably (by Wallace's reasoning), human lives better. It's an unknown element that could upset the status quo, and Wright's character is a protector of the status quo. She clearly doesn't believe that Wallace will be able to control the situation once word gets out of the child's existence, and even if he does, the world he creates will be much different than the one Wright is maintaining, which is her job.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2018 01:31
|
|
|
HUNDU THE BEAST GOD posted:Yup, lol. By process of elimination I think I have to agree with the other poster who said it's Wood Harris, because he's just kinda there in the background of a scene and then we found out that another scene of his was cut. And there aren't really that many actors in the film.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 20, 2018 18:28
|
|
|
I actually am kinda confused about the Nexus models from Blade Runner to 2049. In the original, Batty and his group are Nexus 6 right? Then Rachel, being a new model that Deckard hadn't known about before, is a Nexus 7. So that means the Nexus 8s that BR2049 is referring to in this opening crawl are an even newer model than what Rachel was, that we never saw in the original? How can that be if Tyrell is killed and replicants are illegal? Are we to assume he just developed the Nexus8s off camera and we were never shown that? Or that Wallace made the Nexus 8s before he refined his techniques? Or am I missing something and we actually did see Nexus 8s in the original Blade Runner? Maybe Batty is actually Nexus 7 and Rachel is the first Nexus 8?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2018 14:53
|
|
|
It's the Nexus 8s that are bothering me, because it's implied that those were made before Wallace came along, and so they're in hiding for a long time before the start of the film. So who the hell was making these Nexus 8s after Tyrell died? Some other company came along and made Nexus 8s(using the same terminology as Tyrell), and then that company went bankrupt before the start of BR2049? Was it a failed first experiment by Wallace? The 9s I get are brand new models made by Wallace, no problem there. But they really should be 8s.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2018 15:29
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:But, since Blade Runner 2049 is a soft reboot, the narrative presents the Nexus 8s as having always existed. I think that's the part that made me confused. The way it's presented, these replicants that are in hiding(i.e. Batista's character) may as well just be Nexus 6s or Nexus 7s that just had never been tracked down by a Blade Runner. The addition of this new model Nexus 8 seems unnecessary.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2018 15:45
|
|
|
Oh poo poo, that's the piece I wasn't taking into account, the 4 year lifespan. They had to come up with a new model that didn't have that constraint. Whew, thanks that was really annoying me for some reason.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2018 16:30
|
|
|
The boat horn is a subtle indicator that BR2049 is actually a direct sequel to Arrival, signaling the beginning of The Villanueve Cinematic Universe.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 19, 2018 16:53
|
|
|
vivisectvnv posted:not going to read the rest of the thread, but i'm assuming their is a general consensus of gently caress JARED LETO It wasn't unanimous, but yes that sentiment has been expressed many times in this thread.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 16:10
|
|
|
I don't like Leto's performance but I'm not sure it was really his fault, I think the Wallace character was poorly written. Overly eccentric but without the screen time to really establish any of the eccentricity or incorporate it into a fully formed character.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 18:24
|
|
|
Xealot posted:I feel similarly. It felt more like a casting problem to me, than Leto loving it up. They cast an actor known for big, strange performances in a role that's already big and strange, so it's hardly surprising that he went loud and operatic with it. An actor who doesn't do that, or who doesn't *need* to, might've left some room for other character notes. Yea I think an older actor would've worked better, someone who can do kindly older man but with intensity under the surface. Like a Jeff Daniels maybe.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 26, 2018 20:14
|
|
|
Tenzarin posted:I thought he was fine, he was alot better than what he did in suicide squad. It seems like in both Suicide Squad and Blade Runner, they got Leto because they thought he was one of those actors who can take very limited screen time and make something special and memorable out of it. But he's really not one of those guys.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 31, 2018 02:48
|
|
|
He's tightening up his voice to I guess achieve that effect, not sure exactly what he was going for though. I think his natural voice would've been better.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 15:58
|
|
|
Honestly I had to go back and re-watch Leto's scenes because so much of his dialogue was hard to interpret due to the strange cadence he was using. Like, his statement about how he's only been able to reach a handful of worlds and how it's a huge failure because he should own the entire universe flew right by me the first time I saw it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 16:45
|
|
|
Combs would've really been inspired casting, not sure if Villanueve is well versed in 80's cult horror or not. But he's exactly the kind of actor I would've liked to see as Tyrell's successor, someone who has gravitas and maturity, but can also project genuine weirdness at will.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 18:00
|
|
|
Origami Dali posted:They should have cast Crispin Glover. Well yea but that kinda goes for every movie ever made. If only it were as easy as simply deciding to cast Crispin Glover.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 18:51
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Jared Leto's just-fine performance stands out less to me than the actually-bad revolution subplot. Not sure I'd really call it a subplot, it's mostly just the plot.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2018 22:56
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:Nah, the main plot is K's investigation and personal journey, to which the revolution nonsense is secondary. Point taken but it's not like you can really separate the two. The entire backdrop of K's story is this building revolution and his investigation ends up putting him right at the heart of it.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2018 00:04
|
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:That's wildly overstating it. The personal relationship between K and Joi, Deckard's relationship with his daughter, there's a bunch going on in the movie that isn't about the revolution. All of it is part of the revolution. Joi is there as a window into the future, she's there to make you think about how far this revolution could really go. If replicants are deserving of human rights, what about Joi? It's the same with Deckard. He took Rachel and ran away with her, he had a child with her. The revolution started with Roy Batty, what he taught Deckard makes everything in 2049 possible.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2018 01:10
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 22:24 |
|
|
Sir Kodiak posted:This seems backwards. Like, yeah, both the revolution and Joi reflect the themes of exploitation and emancipation, but there's no indication the actual revolution gives a poo poo about Joi. You're taking two things that are thematically related and using that to imply the entire movie is about a particular arbitrary one of them. The revolution is the core of the movie because it's the through-line between 2049 and the original film. Everything that happens in Blade Runner leads to a revolution in 2049. Without Batty, Deckard never meets Rachel and takes her away from the Tyrell Corp. Rachel is literally the mother of the revolution. The revolution is already happening in Blade Runner, replicants have been outlawed on Earth because of violent uprisings.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2018 01:29
|
|