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

[Hatebox]

5 minutes ago, Elessar said:

The same trailer but no mention of Blade Runner and i bet there would have been way less hype.

 

That's kind of circular logic though, innit? Of course it's the brand that people are excited for — the studio knows this and has teased it accordingly.

[Elessar]

Just now, Hatebox said:

 

That's kind of circular logic though, innit? Of course it's the brand that people are excited for — the studio knows this and has teased it accordingly.

 

Sure, teasers are more for the fans.

 

I guess i wanted to see some future cityscape and didn't get it.

[Hatebox]

Just now, Elessar said:

I guess i wanted to see some future cityscape and didn't get it.

 

I agree, but I guess they're saving it (or haven't rendered them yet).

 

As far as it goes the teaser seems to have gone down well, seen a few friends share it on Facebook this evening.

[Giesi]

Oh my good, the fucking score

I can't wait for this, bless me GOATsling

[Arlborn]

Well, it seems to have the look down quite nicely. I can't wait to see the actual trailer.

[DAR]

I have a question.

 

Spoiler

In the original film the Replicants had a four year lifespan.   And there's been a back and forth whether or not Deckard was one.  Would this prove that he wasn't a Replicant since Ford had obviously aged?  Or he is still one but they advanced the lifespan?

 

[Dementeleus]

19 minutes ago, DAR said:

I have a question.

 

  Hide contents

In the original film the Replicants had a four year lifespan.   And there's been a back and forth whether or not Deckard was one.  Would this prove that he wasn't a Replicant since Ford had obviously aged?  Or he is still one but they advanced the lifespan?

 

 

It remains to be seen how they'll address that.

[vc2002]

Visually it looks promising, but I'm afraid that just like how the original film received cold reception initially, today's audience, even after being educated by all kinds of sci-fi's for so many year, will likely still find this kind of concept unappealing. It's gonna be a tough sell.

 

BTW I dont know why but I kinda dont like see Ryan Gosling in a serious sci-fi like this lol

Edited December 20, 2016 by vc2002

[UTJeff]

People have theorized that Fred Deckard is a Nexus 7.  If he's that, maybe that explains his longer lifespan and aging like a human.  Or he's actually human.  Didn't Ridley Scott always support the idea Deckard is a replicant?

[filmlover]

Give it to me baby

[Chewy]

They're going for all the tech Oscahs like Mad Max and it might work

[Dementeleus]

I'm waiting for @Rallax's hot take.

[aabattery]

[Cochofles]

4 hours ago, Elessar said:

The same trailer but no mention of Blade Runner and i bet there would have been way less hype. Let's be honest, the trailer really doesn't show much and what it does isn't that great. It's more the promise of seeing that world again that excites.

 I concur.

[RascarCapat]

3 hours ago, DAR said:

I have a question.

 

  Hide contents

In the original film the Replicants had a four year lifespan.   And there's been a back and forth whether or not Deckard was one.  Would this prove that he wasn't a Replicant since Ford had obviously aged?  Or he is still one but they advanced the lifespan?

 

 

Spoiler

 

I think my wife got the message of the film.

When I asked her wether Deckard was a Replicant or not she answered :

"Well, the point of the movie is that it doesn't matter"

 

And I think she is spot on, it doesn't matter if they are Replicants or made of flesh, the characters in the movie think, fear, love, hate and act like human beings.

 

In my opinion, they should keep that message and we should never know.

However, it is a good point and I hope we will see some other "Old" replicants in the movie to keep the question living.

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by RascarCapat

[Dementeleus]

7 minutes ago, RascarCapat said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

 

I think my wife got the message of the film.

When I asked her wether Deckard was a Replicant or not she answered :

"Well, the point of the movie is that it doesn't matter"

 

And I think she is spot on, it doesn't matter if they are Replicants or made of flesh, the characters in the movie think, fear, love, hate and act like human beings.

 

In my opinion, they should keep that message and we should never know.

However, it is a good point and I hope we will see some other "Old" replicants in the movie to keep the question living.

 

 

Well, part of the original reveal that made it fascinating to me was that

Deckard isn't merely a pawn, a serviceable tool, but he's been hunting down and killing his own kind. And that ironically, even though he's a replicant he's so stopped-down and repressed (emotionally) that he's more "human" than any of the Replicants... until he finally starts to emotionally react about two-thirds of the way through.

 

Personally, I feel the Final Cut made it a touch too obvious and unambiguous, especially with Scott's emphatic comments in interviews and so forth. It was a bit more fun when you could argue persuasively either way.

 

The "reveal" -- such as it was -- in the DC was kinda mind-blowing when seen in 1992. Up to that point, while the footage was technically the same, no one had seen the version without voice-over... and most of us had only seen it on video, not in theaters. I saw the DC in theaters in San Francisco with a packed crowd. When

Rachael asks Deckard if he'd hunt her down, he says "No, no I wouldn't." Then he turns to her, there's a minor shift in the music cue, and -- for the first time ever -- there was enough detail in the 35mm print (as opposed to VHS or even laserdisc) to see his eyes "glowing" with that same reflectivity that all the replicants had. And he says "But someone would." And -- I shit you not -- the whole audience gasped out loud as one.

 

 

[Deep Wang]

1 hour ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

I'm waiting for @Rallax's hot take.

 

It's gotta be better than the original right?!

[RascarCapat]

3 hours ago, Grand Moff Tele said:

 

Personally, I feel the Final Cut made it a touch too obvious and unambiguous, especially with Scott's emphatic comments in interviews and so forth. It was a bit more fun when you could argue persuasively either way.

 

 

 

I definitely feel it should be ambiguous. (It seems we are talking with spoiler tags for a 1982 movie so let's go on with it).

 

Spoiler

As I said previously one of the reasons I love Blade Runner, apart from the amazing sci fi city visuals and that neo-noir, cynical, slow paced vibe, is the whole ambiguity about who is human and who is not.

 

Even the runners need to use a special machine to detect replicants as they so humanized.

I think it's great to see Deckard fall in Love with a Replicant, especially if you think he is a human.

It's also great that Replicant act as humans with the good sides, but also the sociopath cruel sides, and that some humans act as cold, calculating machines (again, I think it should be ambiguious that Deckard is a replicant).

 

Also I'm an enormous fan of Philip K. Dick and one of his big ideas is that "Reality is just an Illusion, created by the imperfect and innacurate human perception of the narrator".

In most of his work we get the point of view of a narrator who is either crazy, drugged, inside a machine, a robot or just an human with an imperfect perception of reality.

It results in an always ambiguious narration that can be interpreted in different way. He always leaves a doubt on purpose.

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by RascarCapat

[Dementeleus]

I basically agree with you, and like to pretend Scott doesn't have such a definitive opinion in his interviews.  Although I do think the evidence (as presented from the DC onwards) points in one direction only. 

 

As a slight digression (though it's another PKD adaptation), do you subscribe to the TOTAL RECALL theory that Verhoeven managed to slip a psycho trick ending past the studio? I scoffed when I first heard it years and years ago, but I've kinda come around to agreeing with it.  

[The Stingray]

That's why I love QT's response when asked about the contents of the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, "It's whatever the viewer wants it to be."