Blade Runner 2049 | October 6, 2017 | Villeneuve directs | Full Trailer on Page 40

[Ozymandias]

1 hour ago, damnitgeorge08 said:

Alien's legacy is like JP and terminater. Not getting tarnished by latter movies.

 

If Episodes 1-3 couldn't ruin 4-6, then no movie is getting ruined by later installments 

 

But unlike Alien, one thing Bladerunner has going for it is that its still a cult film and hasn't become a slave to its big ass fanbase which has unwittingly become its own worst enemy over time.  Alien has now gotten 4 additional movies(5 if you count Prometheus), 2 lame ass franchise crossovers(AvP), shoot'em up video games, toys, novels, comics, fansites... all of which are just about the monster and not much else, its been overcooked for a long time now.  Bladerunner has none of that baggage or a loud and established fanbase with narrow expectations and Denis Whatshisname is clearly the new heavyweight on the block.  Just compare the Alien Covenant trailer to the Bladerunner 2049 trailer.  One is like "oh, that" and the other "hell yeah"

[The Futurist]

2 hours ago, Ozymandias said:

 

If Episodes 1-3 couldn't ruin 4-6, then no movie is getting ruined by later installments 

 

But unlike Alien, one thing Bladerunner has going for it is that its still a cult film and hasn't become a slave to its big ass fanbase which has unwittingly become its own worst enemy over time.  Alien has now gotten 4 additional movies(5 if you count Prometheus), 2 lame ass franchise crossovers(AvP), shoot'em up video games, toys, novels, comics, fansites... all of which are just about the monster and not much else, its been overcooked for a long time now.  Bladerunner has none of that baggage or a loud and established fanbase with narrow expectations and Denis Whatshisname is clearly the new heavyweight on the block.  Just compare the Alien Covenant trailer to the Bladerunner 2049 trailer.  One is like "oh, that" and the other "hell yeah"

 

Dennis Villeneuve said it, Blade Runner 2049 is the first movie of his career he didn't somehow develop himself.

He was asked to do it by Scott.

The movie was developped by Scott Free (Scott s production company) and he could have directed it in different circumstances but Ridley Scott is so big & powerful he has like 10 projects on his plate at all times.

 

Still hoping for the best tho and that the Québec Libre rises to the occasion.

 

 

[MikeQ]

Spoilers regarding the original:

 

Spoiler

 

I've been doing some reading about the film.

 

Apparently, the screenwriter, Fancher, wrote Deckard as a human, and Ford has considered his character to be human, but that most recently, Scott has said that Deckard is unquestionably a replicant.

 

From Wikipedia:

Spoiler

 

• Philip K. Dick wrote the character Deckard as a human in the original novel.^[17] The film differs from the book in some ways that provide ambiguity on the issue. For example, the book states explicitly that Deckard passed the Voight-Kampff test, while the movie shows Deckard declining to answer whether he did or not.
• Screenwriter Hampton Fancher has said that he wrote the character as a human, but wanted the film to suggest the possibility that he may be a replicant. When asked, "Is Deckard a replicant?", Fancher replied, "No. It wasn't like I had a tricky idea about Deckard that way."^[18] During a discussion panel with Ridley Scott to discuss Blade Runner: The Final Cut, Fancher again stated that he believes Deckard is human (saying that "[Scott's] idea is too complex"), but also repeated that he prefers the film to remain ambiguous: "I like asking the question and I like it to be asked but I think it’s nonsense to answer it. That’s not interesting to me."^[19]
• Harrison Ford considers Deckard to be human. "That was the main area of contention between Ridley and myself at the time," Ford told an interviewer during a BBC One Hollywood Greats segment. "I thought the audience deserved one human being on screen that they could establish an emotional relationship with. I thought I had won Ridley's agreement to that, but in fact I think he had a little reservation about that. I think he really wanted to have it both ways."^[20]
• Ridley Scott stated in an interview in 2002 that he considers Deckard to be a replicant.^[21][22] In a 2007 interview with Wired, he reiterated that he believes Deckard to unquestionably be a replicant and that he considers the debate to be closed. He also suggests that Ford may have since adopted this view as well.^[23]

 

 

Ridley Scott on the issue in a Wired interview in 2007:

https://www.wired.com/2007/09/ff-bladerunner/?currentPage=all

Spoiler

 

Wired: It was never on paper that Deckard is a replicant. 
Scott: It was, actually. That’s the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn’t like Deckard, and we don’t really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let’s say, Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it’s a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard’s daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn’t normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it’s Gaff’s message to say, “I’ve read your file, mate.” That relates to Deckard’s first speech to Rachael when he says, “That’s not your imagination, that’s Tyrell’s niece’s daydream.” And he describes a little spider on a bush outside the window. The spider is an implanted piece of imagination. And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head. 

 

---

 

Wired: When Deckard picks up the origami unicorn at the end of the movie, the look on his face says to me, “Oh, so Gaff was here, and he let Rachael live.” It doesn’t say, “Oh my God! Am I a replicant, too?” 
Scott:No? Why is he nodding when he looks at this silver unicorn? I’m not going to send up a balloon. Doing the job he does, reading the files he reads on other replicants, Deckard may have wondered at one point, “Am I human or am I a replicant?” That’s in his innermost thoughts. I’m just giving you the fully fleshed-out possibility to justify that look at the end, where he kind of glints and looks angry. To me, it’s an affirmation. He nods, he agrees. “Ah hah! Gaff was here. I’ve been told.” 
Wired: Harrison Ford is on record saying Deckard is not a replicant. 
Scott:Yeah, but that was, like, 20 years ago. He’s given up now. He said, “OK, mate. You win! Anything! Just put it to rest.” 

 

 

And a comment from Scott in 2012:

 

• When Scott was asked about the possibility of a sequel in October 2012, he said, "It's not a rumor—it's happening. With Harrison Ford? I don't know yet. Is he too old? Well, he was a Nexus-6 so we don't know how long he can live. And that's all I'm going to say at this stage."

 

I would say thematically it works either way, but I find it, I think, somewhat more compelling if Deckard is not a replicant. But I'm still thinking it through and absorbing the film.

 

But I have been interested in this given [potential minor spoiler regarding sequel, if trying to avoid all news about sequel]:

Spoiler

 

Scott's previous comments and Villeneuve saying that the sequel will include the "replicant-or-not-a-replicant" ambiguity.

 

Villeneuve said at TIFF:

 

• The thing I must say is that I love mystery. I love shadows. I love doubts. I would just want to say to the fans that we will take care of that mystery. I will take care of it.

 

What that means, I don't know...

 

 

 

Peace,

Mike

Edited May 12, 2017 by MikeQ

[Plain Old Tele]

6 minutes ago, MikeQ said:

Spoilers regarding the original:

 

  Hide contents

 

I've been doing some reading about the film.

 

Apparently, the screenwriter, Fancher, wrote Deckard as a human, and Ford has considered his character to be human, but that most recently, Scott has said that Deckard is unquestionably a replicant.

 

From Wikipedia:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

• Philip K. Dick wrote the character Deckard as a human in the original novel.^[17] The film differs from the book in some ways that provide ambiguity on the issue. For example, the book states explicitly that Deckard passed the Voight-Kampff test, while the movie shows Deckard declining to answer whether he did or not.
• Screenwriter Hampton Fancher has said that he wrote the character as a human, but wanted the film to suggest the possibility that he may be a replicant. When asked, "Is Deckard a replicant?", Fancher replied, "No. It wasn't like I had a tricky idea about Deckard that way."^[18] During a discussion panel with Ridley Scott to discuss Blade Runner: The Final Cut, Fancher again stated that he believes Deckard is human (saying that "[Scott's] idea is too complex"), but also repeated that he prefers the film to remain ambiguous: "I like asking the question and I like it to be asked but I think it’s nonsense to answer it. That’s not interesting to me."^[19]
• Harrison Ford considers Deckard to be human. "That was the main area of contention between Ridley and myself at the time," Ford told an interviewer during a BBC One Hollywood Greats segment. "I thought the audience deserved one human being on screen that they could establish an emotional relationship with. I thought I had won Ridley's agreement to that, but in fact I think he had a little reservation about that. I think he really wanted to have it both ways."^[20]
• Ridley Scott stated in an interview in 2002 that he considers Deckard to be a replicant.^[21][22] In a 2007 interview with Wired, he reiterated that he believes Deckard to unquestionably be a replicant and that he considers the debate to be closed. He also suggests that Ford may have since adopted this view as well.^[23]

 

 

Ridley Scott on the issue in a Wired interview in 2007:

https://www.wired.com/2007/09/ff-bladerunner/?currentPage=all

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Wired: It was never on paper that Deckard is a replicant. 
Scott: It was, actually. That’s the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn’t like Deckard, and we don’t really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let’s say, Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it’s a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard’s daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn’t normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it’s Gaff’s message to say, “I’ve read your file, mate.” That relates to Deckard’s first speech to Rachael when he says, “That’s not your imagination, that’s Tyrell’s niece’s daydream.” And he describes a little spider on a bush outside the window. The spider is an implanted piece of imagination. And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head. 

 

---

 

Wired: When Deckard picks up the origami unicorn at the end of the movie, the look on his face says to me, “Oh, so Gaff was here, and he let Rachael live.” It doesn’t say, “Oh my God! Am I a replicant, too?” 
Scott:No? Why is he nodding when he looks at this silver unicorn? I’m not going to send up a balloon. Doing the job he does, reading the files he reads on other replicants, Deckard may have wondered at one point, “Am I human or am I a replicant?” That’s in his innermost thoughts. I’m just giving you the fully fleshed-out possibility to justify that look at the end, where he kind of glints and looks angry. To me, it’s an affirmation. He nods, he agrees. “Ah hah! Gaff was here. I’ve been told.” 
Wired: Harrison Ford is on record saying Deckard is not a replicant. 
Scott:Yeah, but that was, like, 20 years ago. He’s given up now. He said, “OK, mate. You win! Anything! Just put it to rest.” 

 

 

And a comment from Scott in 2012:

 

• When Scott was asked about the possibility of a sequel in October 2012, he said, "It's not a rumor—it's happening. With Harrison Ford? I don't know yet. Is he too old? Well, he was a Nexus-6 so we don't know how long he can live. And that's all I'm going to say at this stage."

 

I would say thematically it works either way, but I find it, I think, somewhat more compelling if Deckard is not a replicant. But I'm still thinking it through and absorbing the film.

 

But I have been interested in this given [potential minor spoiler regarding sequel, if trying to avoid all news about sequel]:

  Hide contents

 

Scott's previous comments and Villeneuve saying that the sequel will include the "replicant-or-not-a-replicant" ambiguity.

 

Villeneuve said at TIFF:

 

• The thing I must say is that I love mystery. I love shadows. I love doubts. I would just want to say to the fans that we will take care of that mystery. I will take care of it.

 

What that means, I don't know...

 

 

 

Peace,

Mike

 

Mike, I never responded to your first reactions.

 

A little bit of the charm is gone now that Scott is so emphatic about Deckard being a replicant. I think the movie unquestionably makes the case that he is -- at least the Final Cut does -- but it never out-and-out says it, and a little ambiguity never hurt anyone. I wish Scott wouldn't have said what he did. The theatrical cut was completely ambiguous (at best) and I think most people would've assumed he wasn't. The dream is gone, the ending is happy, there's every sense that he's just a regular guy who finally manages to escape the chaos.

 

Although I've shared this anecdote before, I'll share it again: I discovered BLADE RUNNER on video (like many people). Back then, that meant VHS. Even when I had my laserdisc copy, the quality was better but still nothing like Blu-ray. In 1992 the Director's Cut was released, and had a small theatrical run before ending up on video as well. I found a way to get to San Francisco to see it. The theater was packed and what was interesting was how much detail was revealed in the images (35mm vs laserdisc, duh!). But there was a scene -- a moment -- that I'd never given a second thought to that played really differently simply because of resolution/clarity/detail. It happens maybe halfway through, when Deckard and Rachel are in his apartment. He's cleaning himself up from the fight with Leon and explaining blade runners to her. She asks him if he would hunt her down. He turns to her and says, "No... but someone would." In the video version, this just played like a normal beat. He has some feelings for her, and so forth. In the theater, when he turns, there's a reddish glint in his eye -- the same glint we saw repeatedly on replicants throughout the movie. He says "No..." (the glint, with a subtly ominous music cue, no less!) "...but someone would." There was an audible gasp throughout the audience in the theater -- that's how much of an impact it had.[/quote]

 

I hope the sequel plays with ambiguity the way the original does. Questions don't necessarily need to be answered.

[MikeQ]

7 minutes ago, Tele Came Back said:

 

Mike, I never responded to your first reactions.

 

 

  Hide contents

A little bit of the charm is gone now that Scott is so emphatic about Deckard being a replicant. I think the movie unquestionably makes the case that he is -- at least the Final Cut does -- but it never out-and-out says it, and a little ambiguity never hurt anyone. I wish Scott wouldn't have said what he did. The theatrical cut was completely ambiguous (at best) and I think most people would've assumed he wasn't. The dream is gone, the ending is happy, there's every sense that he's just a regular guy who finally manages to escape the chaos.

 

Although I've shared this anecdote before, I'll share it again: I discovered BLADE RUNNER on video (like many people). Back then, that meant VHS. Even when I had my laserdisc copy, the quality was better but still nothing like Blu-ray. In 1992 the Director's Cut was released, and had a small theatrical run before ending up on video as well. I found a way to get to San Francisco to see it. The theater was packed and what was interesting was how much detail was revealed in the images (35mm vs laserdisc, duh!). But there was a scene -- a moment -- that I'd never given a second thought to that played really differently simply because of resolution/clarity/detail. It happens maybe halfway through, when Deckard and Rachel are in his apartment. He's cleaning himself up from the fight with Leon and explaining blade runners to her. She asks him if he would hunt her down. He turns to her and says, "No... but someone would." In the video version, this just played like a normal beat. He has some feelings for her, and so forth. In the theater, when he turns, there's a reddish glint in his eye -- the same glint we saw repeatedly on replicants throughout the movie. He says "No..." (the glint, with a subtly ominous music cue, no less!) "...but someone would." There was an audible gasp throughout the audience in the theater -- that's how much of an impact it had.[/quote]

 

I hope the sequel plays with ambiguity the way the original does. Questions don't necessarily need to be answered.

Spoiler

 

Wow, terrific anecdote - thank you for sharing. I hadn't noticed this when watching it, but I'm going to pay close attention on my next viewing. And right after that is when Rachael asks Deckard if he's taken the Voight-Kampf (sp?) test himself. 

 

I agree, I like that the film sits in relative ambiguity. I'm hopeful the sequel will play this way as well, given Villeneuve's comment about loving mystery/shadows/doubt.

 

 

Peace,

Mike

[junkshop36]

For me personally, I still love the original theatrical cut. It was the version I grew up with. I've never had a problem with the voice over. In fact, I kind of prefer it. The couple of times I've watched the directors cut I miss it. 

 

I dont remeber what channel it was, maybe AMC or IFC, but it was playing one day earlier this year and I switched to it to see what version it was. To my surprise it was the theatrical version. Not sure why. 

[Travod]

Can 2049 pull a Fury Road? Like, be fantastic? (Like, 10 nominations fantastic?)

Edited May 13, 2017 by Travod

[shayhiri]

39 minutes ago, Travod said:

Can 2049 pull a Fury Road? Like, be fantastic? (Like, 10 nominations fantastic?)

 

No. Miller is a God, Villeneuve is a nobody.

[kowhite]

11 minutes ago, shayhiri said:

 

No. Miller is a God, Villeneuve is a nobody.

 

Shay, don't do this.

[shayhiri]

OK, I will never compare them two again.

 

Because it just isn't possible.

[the beast]

Blade Runner 2049 OW: $47.5 Million

2nd Weekend - $34.15 (-30%) Total: $89.65 Million

3rd Weekend - $25 Million (-27%) Total: $119 Million

4th Weekend - $19 Million (-24%)  Total: $140.5 Million

5th Weekend - $11.21 Million (-41%) Total: $153.75 Million

 

RT Prediction: 98% 

 

Domestic Total: $165 Million (3.474 X)

 

Foreign Prediction: $325 Million

 

Worldwide Prediction: $490 Million

 

[Ozymandias]

will probably show up at TIFF

[MikeQ]

I hadn't realized the trailer had hewn so closely (and clearly intentionally) to the original's trailer.

 

 

Peace,

Mike

 

Edited May 17, 2017 by MikeQ

[antovolk]

Jeff Wells on apparent test screening

 

I’ve been told, in fact, that the latest cut of Blade Runner 2049, which was test-screened last night in Paramus, New Jersey, runs between 160 and 165 minutes, and that Ford doesn’t appear until “around” the two-hour mark. A guy who attended suspects the Denis Villenueve‘s film will play better with the critics than with your run-of-the-mill, popcorn-inhaling sci-fi geeks. That, to me, would be excellent news.

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2017/06/longish-noir-search-answer/

Edited June 7, 2017 by antovolk

[WrathOfHan]

 

 

I've been saying this will be more niche than people are expecting.

Edited June 7, 2017 by WrathOfHan

[Ethan Hunt]

1 minute ago, antovolk said:

Jeff Wells on apparent test screening

  Reveal hidden contents

I’ve been told, in fact, that the latest cut of Blade Runner 2049, which was test-screened last night in Paramus, New Jersey, runs between 160 and 165 minutes, and that Ford doesn’t appear until “around” the two-hour mark. A guy who attended suspects the Denis Villenueve‘s film will play better with the critics than with your run-of-the-mill, popcorn-inhaling sci-fi geeks. That, to me, would be excellent news.

http://www.hollywood-elsewhere.com/2017/06/longish-noir-search-answer/

EPIIIIIIICCCICICCCCCCC

[That One Girl]

If correct, I'd love that.

[Macleod]

It will be edited down a bit, I'm sure.

 

Spoiler

And Ridley Scott revealed the Ford "doesn't show up until the third act" a long time ago...so I guess they've stuck with that.

 

[UNDERDOG]

FUCK YEAH

[Ethan Hunt]

1 minute ago, Macleod said:

It will be edited down a bit, I'm sure.

 

  Reveal hidden contents

And Ridley Scott revealed the Ford "doesn't show up until the third act" a long time ago...so I guess they've stuck with that.

 

well yeah. but still should be well over two hours. which makes me do a happy dance