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

[CJohn]

10 minutes ago, James said:

I've seen both WB's and Sony's Logo. We know WB is distributing DOM. Is Sony distributing OS?

Yes.

[Dementeleus]

Looks very promising. What's interesting is that while it seems like it fits perfectly with the original cut of BR, some explanation will be needed to make it work with the Final Cut.

 

Spoilers for people like CJohn who somehow haven't seen the original. (And seriously, don't click on this, CJohn!)

 

 

In the original cut cut, Deckard isn't a replicant and Rachael is a new, special type of replicant without a built-in 4-year lifespan. So having Deckard disappear and be found, decades later, as an old man, makes complete sense. But in the Final Cut, Deckard is a replicant, there's no indication whatsoever that he or Rachael are anything special, and the strong implication is that they're gonna live out the rest of their (brief) lives together.
 

 

[eXtacy]

Just now, Grand Moff Tele said:

Looks very promising. What's interesting is that while it seems like it fits perfectly with the original cut of BR, some explanation will be needed to make it work with the Final Cut.

 

Spoilers for people like CJohn who somehow haven't seen the original. (And seriously, don't click on this, CJohn!)

  Reveal hidden contents

 

In the original cut cut, Deckard isn't a replicant and Rachael is a new, special type of replicant without a built-in 4-year lifespan. So having Deckard disappear and be found, decades later, as an old man, makes complete sense. But in the Final Cut, Deckard is a replicant, there's no indication whatsoever that he or Rachael are anything special, and the strong implication is that they're gonna live out the rest of their (brief) lives together.
 

 

 

I just watched the final cut. Ah shit thats quite the difference

[Hatebox]

1 minute ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

Looks very promising. What's interesting is that while it seems like it fits perfectly with the original cut of BR, some explanation will be needed to make it work with the Final Cut.

 

Spoilers for people like CJohn who somehow haven't seen the original. (And seriously, don't click on this, CJohn!)

  Hide contents

 

In the original cut cut, Deckard isn't a replicant and Rachael is a new, special type of replicant without a built-in 4-year lifespan. So having Deckard disappear and be found, decades later, as an old man, makes complete sense. But in the Final Cut, Deckard is a replicant, there's no indication whatsoever that he or Rachael are anything special, and the strong implication is that they're gonna live out the rest of their (brief) lives together.
 

 

 

Spoiler

I know Scott has come right out and said Deckard is a replicant, but I've always hated that interpretation. If the point of the story is to ask what it means to be human, it's much more profound for a human to learn that lesson, IMO. I like screenwriter Hampton Fancher's take on the whole is he/isn't he debate: "the answer is irrelevant. All that matters is the question." But you're right, they'll probably have to address it somehow since it's become such a big deal among the fans.

 

[CJohn]

Goddammit I bought the Final Cut on Bluray just a week ago. 

[The Futurist]

This whole "different cut gave a different meaning to Blade Runner" always bugged the fuck out of me.

 

Don't see any appeal for the GA for this.

 

The first movie represents nothing for 90% of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by The Futurist

[Dementeleus]

3 minutes ago, Hatebox said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

I know Scott has come right out and said Deckard is a replicant, but I've always hated that interpretation. If the point of the story is to ask what it means to be human, it's much more profound for a human to learn that lesson, IMO. I like screenwriter Hampton Fancher's take on the whole is he/isn't he debate: "the answer is irrelevant. All that matters is the question." But you're right, they'll probably have to address it somehow since it's become such a big deal among the fans.

 

 

Well, the original Director's Cut -- while it implied it -- was still relatively subtle and ambiguous. But the Final Cut is more definitive and yeah, Scott has repeatedly emphasized his intent and interpretation.

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, CJohn said:

Goddammit I bought the Final Cut on Bluray just a week ago. 

 

Hurry up and watch.

[antovolk]

What a teaser. 

[chrisman0606]

The trailer was awesome, But I also wonder will this be PG-13 Or R like it's predecessor?  

[CoolioD1]

3 minutes ago, The Futurist said:

This whole "different cut gave a different meaning to Blade Runner" always bugged the fuck out of me.

 

Don't see any appeal for the GA for this.

 

The first movie represents nothing for 90% of it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

lol i still haven't seen blade runner cos the 16 different cuts thing always annoyed me too. (not opening the floor for people to tell me which cut is the right one. i don't care.)

[Hatebox]

3 minutes ago, chrisman0606 said:

The trailer was awesome, But I also wonder will this be PG-13 Or R like it's predecessor?  

 

I think we're at the point where if we have to ask that question about a big movie, it'll be PG-13. But I guess the original would probably scrape that rating now too?

 

EDIT - well, apart from the eye-gouging.

 

 

 

Edited December 19, 2016 by Hatebox

[Dementeleus]

1 minute ago, CoolioD1 said:

lol i still haven't seen blade runner cos the 16 different cuts thing always annoyed me too. (not opening the floor for people to tell me which cut is the right one. i don't care.)

 

 

You should watch the Final Cut.

 

[Dementeleus]

Just now, Hatebox said:

 

I think we're at the point where if we have to ask that question about a big movie, it'll be PG-13. But I guess the original would probably scrape that rating now too?

 

No, I don't think so. Boobs, a mostly naked woman getting shot in the back, the mini self-crucification, giant bullet wound to the head, etc.

[Hatebox]

Just now, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

No, I don't think so. Boobs, a mostly naked woman getting shot in the back, the mini self-crucification, giant bullet wound to the head, etc.

 

Lol, I've become so desensitized. Thanks, pop culture.

[The Futurist]

The problem is that the movie had more than a Theatrical cut & a director s cut, it s all over the place, unless I am mistaken.

 

it s really an oddity in that regard.

 

 

[La Binoche]

Excited because of Villeneuve. 

[NCsoft]

wow! atmospheric

[LonePirate]

This teaser could probably be deemed a success if its goal was to introduce a sequel to fans of the original. However, the vast majority of general audience members - especially overseas - has never seen the first film or has no memory/knowledge of it. For those people, it's just a movie with Dr. Han Jones and the hot guy from that one movie. Seriously, Gosling is in desperate need of an actual hit film which he drives rather than joins for the ride.

 

I'm going to see this simply due to Villeneuve. Hopefully this film will return him to his Prisoners and Sicario levels of greatness which are easily two of the best films of this decade.

[marveldcfox]

OMG....Blade Runner was boxoffice bomb..didn't know that. A sequel to a 35 year old film that bombed...frankly it being a good movie and doing 300 WW would be a great achievement. Hopefully, after this he will be offered STAR WARS. Now.....that's going to be something....