Blade Runner 2049Movies 

  • Thread starter CodeRedR51
  • 99 comments
  • 4,316 views
The only reason I am willing to pay any attention to this is because of the talent involved, both new and returning - not just Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott, but Dennis Villeneuve and Roger Deakins. Without them, I would have serious concerns that this could turn into another RoboCop or Total Recall.
 
That it failed to hype me worries me (only thing that hyped me was the title drop with the music).
I saw Blade Runner a few months ago and it was incredible. But this? I won't get my hopes up.
 
...I've seen Blade Runner, what, five, six times? It's one of those films that I can only recall in bits and pieces. But the bits that I do recall leaves me with warm and fuzzy feelings. Will this film do the same, I wonder.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one. Ryan Gosling has been riding one hell of a wave right now and so far, he hasn't picked too big of a turkey yet. Hoping this particular film wouldn't be the one to break that streak.
 
That it failed to hype me worries me (only thing that hyped me was the title drop with the music).
I saw Blade Runner a few months ago and it was incredible. But this? I won't get my hopes up.
If you can, watch Prisoners, Sicario and Arrival. All three were directed by Denis Villeneuve, and all three are excellent. Roger Deakins did the cinematography on Prisoners and Sicario (but not Arrival); he probably should have won a dozen Oscars by now, but bizarrely, he hasn't won any. His use of light is particularly brilliant.
 
Is Rutger in it? I'm afraid this will be full of used up cliche and tired effects, that being said I'll still watch it.
 
Is Rutger in it?
Why would he be? Roy Batty died at the end of Blade Runner. So far, the confirmed cast includes Ford and Gosling, plus Mackenzie Davis (Halt and Catch Fire), Dave Bautista (Guardians of the Galaxy and Spectre), Lennie James (The Walking Dead), Jared Leto (Dallas Buyers' Club and Suicide Squad) and Barkhad Abdi (Captain Phillips), plus a whole host of European actors whose film credits mostly consist of foreign-language releases. Ford as Deckard and Gosling as K are the only actors confirmed to play specific roles.

Arrival was still great though in this department
Oh, absolutely. In fact, I think Deakins would have been a poor (relatively speaking) choice for Arrival, given his style.
 
Why would he be?

Why not? The character died not the actor(a replicant of a 4 year span?), it would not be the first time one returned. The answer being no is good enough for me. He would have been a great addition to the movie in whatever role imo which is why I asked.
 
It wouldn't add anything. In fact, it would undermine the entire Blade Runner film. The whole point of the film is to question what it means to be human. Batty's soliloquy before his death shows his resignation to his fate and the catharsis that comes with it. Despite being an android, he achieves a moment of humanity - to be human is to be mortal; to seek immortality is to cheapen the human experience. To bring Roy Batty back would be to destroy everything the first film stood for.
 
That it failed to hype me worries me (only thing that hyped me was the title drop with the music).
I saw Blade Runner a few months ago and it was incredible. But this? I won't get my hopes up.

Why it has the original actor and director...I'm confused. What essentially made the first movie is being returned, with a great cast in Ryan Gosling and as PM said other production staff. If anything you should be over hyped.

...I've seen Blade Runner, what, five, six times? It's one of those films that I can only recall in bits and pieces. But the bits that I do recall leaves me with warm and fuzzy feelings. Will this film do the same, I wonder.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one. Ryan Gosling has been riding one hell of a wave right now and so far, he hasn't picked too big of a turkey yet. Hoping this particular film wouldn't be the one to break that streak.

Too big? The guy has had some big movie, maybe not something with this type of lineage on it but still.
 
Why it has the original actor and director
To be fair, Ridley Scott is only the executive producer. But that may not necessarily be a bad thing - he's made some excellent films, like Blade Runner and The Martian, but he's also made some downright horrible films, like The Counsellor (though I suspect that it was his way of dealing with his brother's suicide). When he's on form, he's excellent, but I would rate him as the most inconsistent triple-A director in Hollywood right now.

Conversely, Villeneuve has an established track record of provocative and well-balanced films. Given its legacy, it would be very difficult to make a satisfactory follow-up to Blade Runner, much less one that builds upon its quality. But with Villeneuve running the show, I'm pretty confident that this isn't going to fall into the trap of being made for the sake of it and padded out with sequences that would not be out of place in a video game.
 
To be fair, Ridley Scott is only the executive producer. But that may not necessarily be a bad thing - he's made some excellent films, like Blade Runner and The Martian, but he's also made some downright horrible films, like The Counsellor (though I suspect that it was his way of dealing with his brother's suicide). When he's on form, he's excellent, but I would rate him as the most inconsistent triple-A director in Hollywood right now.

Conversely, Villeneuve has an established track record of provocative and well-balanced films. Given its legacy, it would be very difficult to make a satisfactory follow-up to Blade Runner, much less one that builds upon its quality. But with Villeneuve running the show, I'm pretty confident that this isn't going to fall into the trap of being made for the sake of it and padded out with sequences that would not be out of place in a video game.

I feel personally he's had more hits than misses. That's why I'm not worried and the fact that Harrison Ford is some part of this movie is all the better. It's basically the same outlook I have but more so when Miller returned to do another Mad Max.
 
That's why I'm not worried and the fact that Harrison Ford is some part of this movie is all the better.
I'm hoping they go in a completely different direction to Blade Runner. Sure, blade runners and replicants will no doubt be a part of it, but I hope they'll explore other parts of the universe.
 
I'm hoping they go in a completely different direction to Blade Runner. Sure, blade runners and replicants will no doubt be a part of it, but I hope they'll explore other parts of the universe.

It'd be interesting if the off world wars have made their way to home world. It seems to be somewhat more desolate than prior so who knows it could be the case.
 
I'm hoping they go in a completely different direction to Blade Runner. Sure, blade runners and replicants will no doubt be a part of it, but I hope they'll explore other parts of the universe.
The "I did your job once..." bit in the trailer is a fair indication of that.

There were three follow-on novels by KW Jeter exploring the whole back-story more fully, including a side trip to Mars that I feel will be woven into this in some way, if only in details and history, as this is being set, what...thirty-five years later? The story though will still focused on what it means to be human, I feel as that is such a rich subject and can go so many ways.
 
Last edited:
Too big? The guy has had some big movie, maybe not something with this type of lineage on it but still.

...Dude!!

too big of a turkey

Gosling's films of late all have been considered either financially successful, or critical hit. Although there are outliers like The Nice Guys which was a bit of a lukewarm film, to be honest (personally speaking, of course.)

And again, I didn't get a notification when you quoted me. I think this is the second time now. Hmm....
 
...Dude!!



Gosling's films of late all have been considered either financially successful, or critical hit. Although there are outliers like The Nice Guys which was a bit of a lukewarm film, to be honest (personally speaking, of course.)

And again, I didn't get a notification when you quoted me. I think this is the second time now. Hmm....

I'm not really here this is a dream.
 
Why it has the original actor and director...I'm confused. What essentially made the first movie is being returned, with a great cast in Ryan Gosling and as PM said other production staff. If anything you should be over hyped.

It's just that real life isn't so simple, it isn't as basic as A+B=C when people and not numbers are involved. Plus while a great sequel builds up on a movie, a terrible (or bad) sequel tends to taint the image of the first. I'm not saying a bad Blade Runner 2049 will make Blade Runner crap, but whenever I watch it again, I will be thinking "and thus came BR2049 and this and this happened... blergh".

Some people consider movies to be separate, I consider movies to be part of a whole. Saying one film is independent of the other is like me judging a book only by the chapters I liked, and forgetting about the rest.
 
The only reason I am willing to pay any attention to this is because of the talent involved, both new and returning - not just Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott, but Dennis Villeneuve and Roger Deakins. Without them, I would have serious concerns that this could turn into another RoboCop or Total Recall.

Not to mention Jöhann Jöhannsson is doing the score and Arrival had one of the best musical scores this year. I agreed he has a tough act to follow with what Vangelis created for the original film (one of the best scores of all time) but Jöhann knows this and is a huge fan of the original film and score so he hopes fans will be happy.
 
I'm not saying a bad Blade Runner 2049 will make Blade Runner crap, but whenever I watch it again, I will be thinking "and thus came BR2049 and this and this happened... blergh".
Funny because the original movie was considered to be crap when it was originally released. It didn't make much money at the box office.
 
Funny because the original movie was considered to be crap when it was originally released. It didn't make much money at the box office.

It depends on how you measure quality. Since how good a movie is subjective (a lot of people consider the technique an objective measurement, but whether you care about technique or not is subjective too), you can completely dismiss earnings and reviews.
 
...I've seen Blade Runner, what, five, six times? It's one of those films that I can only recall in bits and pieces. But the bits that I do recall leaves me with warm and fuzzy feelings. Will this film do the same, I wonder.

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one. Ryan Gosling has been riding one hell of a wave right now and so far, he hasn't picked too big of a turkey yet. Hoping this particular film wouldn't be the one to break that streak.
Mentioning "fingers crossed" while watching Blade Runner, makes me :ill:
I won't ever stick my hand in a wall(and a tree- see Flash Gordon).
 
It's just that real life isn't so simple, it isn't as basic as A+B=C when people and not numbers are involved. Plus while a great sequel builds up on a movie, a terrible (or bad) sequel tends to taint the image of the first. I'm not saying a bad Blade Runner 2049 will make Blade Runner crap, but whenever I watch it again, I will be thinking "and thus came BR2049 and this and this happened... blergh".

No but when you have an original actor that is pretty well traversed with the character and getting back into it just as an older Deckard, that's one thing. You bring on a younger actor for a new part in it that is a great actor as well. You bring in great new production and Scott who probably had a vision long in the making for this and it's hard to not be hyped. So it is a pretty simple analysis, similar to why the latest Bourne is better than Legacy to me because it picked up the same pacing with essentially the same team as the first three.

As for tainting an original...I've never had that problem. I think Thunderdome is an awful movie compared to the other two mad max. I like it cause it keeps some basis, but in reality I think comparison wise it's crap. And yet I don't feel it's tainted the first one. Same here, if it's bust it's bust, the original one is still what it is despite.

If you get caught up in other movies of the series, that's you. Personally I don't see why it matters, each one tells it's story and that's that. IF they all happen to tell a cohesive story one after another, all the better. Doesn't really matter to me as long as the story alone is good.

Some people consider movies to be separate, I consider movies to be part of a whole. Saying one film is independent of the other is like me judging a book only by the chapters I liked, and forgetting about the rest.

Yes I see them separate as I demonstrated above, just like I see different music albums of the same make from the same group separate. Or works of art in a series, or even books of a series.
 
If you can, watch Prisoners, Sicario and Arrival. All three were directed by Denis Villeneuve, and all three are excellent. Roger Deakins did the cinematography on Prisoners and Sicario (but not Arrival); he probably should have won a dozen Oscars by now, but bizarrely, he hasn't won any. His use of light is particularly brilliant.
Prisoners and Sicario were outstanding, wasn't really sold on Arrival but willing to give this movie a shot based on what you've said here.
 
No but when you have an original actor that is pretty well traversed with the character and getting back into it just as an older Deckard, that's one thing. You bring on a younger actor for a new part in it that is a great actor as well. You bring in great new production and Scott who probably had a vision long in the making for this and it's hard to not be hyped. So it is a pretty simple analysis, similar to why the latest Bourne is better than Legacy to me because it picked up the same pacing with essentially the same team as the first three.

While I understand you can be hyped, to imply it will be incredible is something I cannot agree with. And this is beyond whatever BR2049 turns out to be.

Yes I see them separate as I demonstrated above, just like I see different music albums of the same make from the same group separate. Or works of art in a series, or even books of a series.

Music is a different thing, though. It isn't telling a story. In Blade Runner, you don't know what happens with Deckard, and it's up to your imagination. When Blade Runner 2049 comes out, however, that imagination will be gone forever once you watch it.
 
Back