New Blade Runner movie trailer

Based on Prometheus, I expect that this Blade Runner sequel will be visually spectacular. But all the bets are off on whether this will be a good story. At least that Damion Lost bozo didn't work on this movie.

This is kind of funny:

www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/harrison-f...1Zo?ocid=mailsignout

“We were just doing a fight scene and, you know, it just happened,” explains Gosling. “But what was funny was, when it was over, they brought ice for my face, and Harrison pushed me out of the way and stuck his fist in the ice.”

Legomancer wrote:

stoic wrote: Does this sequel now mean that Deckard isn't a replicant? WTF?

"Deckard is a replicant" is the dumbest fucking thing. Misses every single point about the story.

A little heavy on the hyperbole here eh? It is neither the 'dumbest fucking thing' nor does it 'miss every single point about the story'. It was a nice little addition to a good movie that gave it a cool mystery that didn't need an answer. Was it worth obsessing over the way some fans do? Of course not, but it was still a cool addition to the film. I love mysteries... for me it was like the box at the end of Barton Fink... it doesn't matter if it's a head or not, it doesn't have any big impact on the film, but it's there none the less and it's nice that Barton never opens it.

I still wish the time, energy, money, creativity etc... was being used to make a new world all together. I am not a fan of this idea. I'll see it some day because I love Blade Runner but I'm not going too far out of my way to do it.

Full disclosure: I utterly detest this idea. As I've mentioned before, I think the director's cut of Blade Runner (no voiceover, ends in the elevator) is the finest science fiction film ever made and one of the best, regardless of genre. There's no sequel required. The story was told.

First off, they're using a voiceover in the trailer. Whether or not it's a part of the film, it's a bad reminder of the studio interference that marred the first one. Secondly, they're using a damn handheld in the last shot as they follow Gosling. Part of the appeal of the first film was the visual storytelling. Scott used stationary cameras for most of it that let you sit and absorb what was happening on the screen without bouncing around and being forced to do so as you try to reorient yourself to what the director is switching to. Third, part of the appeal of Deckard in the first place was his air of resignation. Ford's age at the time gave him that air. He was 40 when the film was released. IIRC, Gosling is still in his mid-thirties. If they're intending him to take up the same role, but this time hunting Deckard, he doesn't have the same gravitas, which implies veering much closer to the "action film" that Jeb is dreading.

And whether or not Deckard is a replicant misses the point of the film entirely. The fact that a supposed human could be so machine-like as to kill other organisms that have emotions, memories, and awareness of their existence as humans or the closest thing to it IS the point of the film. It's about questioning the nature of humanity. Suggesting that he's grown in a vat means that he's in the same childlike state as the rest of them, i.e. he potentially doesn't fully understand the moral and ethical choices he's had to make in order to perform these killings. Everything about the character's mien says that he does, so making him a replicant simply defies the presentation and development of the character throughout the film. It's a fucking "gotcha" mystery that idiots have thrown in there because they want a Hollywood twist and didn't actually stop to think about the story in the first place. Witness Ridley Scott and pretty much everything he's done since Thelma & Louise...

JonJacob wrote:

Legomancer wrote:

stoic wrote: Does this sequel now mean that Deckard isn't a replicant? WTF?

"Deckard is a replicant" is the dumbest fucking thing. Misses every single point about the story.

A little heavy on the hyperbole here eh? It is neither the 'dumbest fucking thing' nor does it 'miss every single point about the story'.

mmm, thinking about it some more, no, it's the dumbest fucking thing.

I'm amused by the differences in Blade Runner from the original book. (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?) In the book, Deckard is married to a woman named Iran, which would have been a distinct problem for many movie-goers in 1982. There is a whole questionable religion, Mercerism. Deckard has a pet goat, and later a pet toad. People use Penfield Mood Organs to regulate their emotions. And there is an awesome sequence where Deckard gets arrested by cops and taken to a precinct station that he never knew existed, and it turns out that every cop there is a replicant that didn't know it was a replicant.

Yeah, I never really compare the two because they are so different. Blade Runner is one story and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is another. I think Blade Runner is actually the better story for asking some of those essential questions and I think films like Ex Machina approached a similar topic in a different way. But Do Androids was more about Dick's personal foibles, like so many of his other works. They made him a great writer of his era and a really interesting guy, but didn't really elevate his stuff to be essential in the canon, I think. Blade Runner steps past Dick's original ideas and run farther with them, closer to The Foundation territory. The film probably would have been better labeled "Inspired by", rather than "Based on."

Jackwraith wrote: Yeah, I never really compare the two because they are so different. Blade Runner is one story and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is another.

I first saw Bladerunner shortly after reading the novel, and I didn't like it at all. I thought it was bad. Many years later I decided to re-watch Bladerunner as a separate entity from the book and I enjoyed it much more.

I know I'm in the minority, but I don't consider a unicorn dream and some origami to be solid evidence of anything. Really I just don't see this society giving a replicant a gun and letting him run loose. Kind of defeats the point of trying to keep gun-toting replicants off the planet.

Mad Dog wrote: I know I'm in the minority, but I don't consider a unicorn dream and some origami to be solid evidence of anything. Really I just don't see this society giving a replicant a gun and letting him run loose. Kind of defeats the point of trying to keep gun-toting replicants off the planet.

Right. There's no real basis for it unless Tyrell managed to sneak another replicant like Rachel onto the force years before... except that he outright states that Rachel is a new design, even further advanced than the other Nexus 6s. The unicorn dream is potentially symbolic of many things: Deckard thinking about Rachel being a one-of-a-kind, for example. Or it's emblematic of nothing, like most dreams. The fact that Gaff clued into Deckard wanting to save Rachel because she's supposedly different and that Gaff interprets it, perhaps facetiously, as searching for a unicorn fits right in with the rest of the story without having to consider Deckard as anything but the flawed human that he is.

Jackwraith wrote: Full disclosure: I utterly detest this idea. As I've mentioned before, I think the director's cut of Blade Runner (no voiceover, ends in the elevator) is the finest science fiction film ever made and one of the best, regardless of genre. There's no sequel required. The story was told.

First off, they're using a voiceover in the trailer. Whether or not it's a part of the film, it's a bad reminder of the studio interference that marred the first one. Secondly, they're using a damn handheld in the last shot as they follow Gosling. Part of the appeal of the first film was the visual storytelling. Scott used stationary cameras for most of it that let you sit and absorb what was happening on the screen without bouncing around and being forced to do so as you try to reorient yourself to what the director is switching to. Third, part of the appeal of Deckard in the first place was his air of resignation. Ford's age at the time gave him that air. He was 40 when the film was released. IIRC, Gosling is still in his mid-thirties. If they're intending him to take up the same role, but this time hunting Deckard, he doesn't have the same gravitas, which implies veering much closer to the "action film" that Jeb is dreading.

And whether or not Deckard is a replicant misses the point of the film entirely. The fact that a supposed human could be so machine-like as to kill other organisms that have emotions, memories, and awareness of their existence as humans or the closest thing to it IS the point of the film. It's about questioning the nature of humanity. Suggesting that he's grown in a vat means that he's in the same childlike state as the rest of them, i.e. he potentially doesn't fully understand the moral and ethical choices he's had to make in order to perform these killings. Everything about the character's mien says that he does, so making him a replicant simply defies the presentation and development of the character throughout the film. It's a fucking "gotcha" mystery that idiots have thrown in there because they want a Hollywood twist and didn't actually stop to think about the story in the first place. Witness Ridley Scott and pretty much everything he's done since Thelma & Louise...

Obviously I'm in the minority here but this reads as an incredibly pedantic interpretation of the film. You intentionally create contradictions where none exist, you reduce the film to simply it's ingredients and continue to display, much like lego was doing, completely un-called for and un-earned arrogance and superiority over anyone who can't see it in your narrow way with your specific interpretations. The film can achieve all you want from it and still have the replicant mystery... but you have to be much less literal. When I read the issues you have with the idea... I become very bored.

...much like watching Blade Runner itself!

Shellhead wrote:
“We were just doing a fight scene and, you know, it just happened,” explains Gosling. “But what was funny was, when it was over, they brought ice for my face, and Harrison pushed me out of the way and stuck his fist in the ice.”

That is the most Han Solo thing I've heard all day.

I believe Deckard was a replicant, and I totally buy into not only that but he was actually implanted with Gaff's memories.

www.gavinrothery.com/my-blog/2011/10/1/a...-electric-sheep.html

And whether or not Deckard is a replicant misses the point of the film entirely. The fact that a supposed human could be so machine-like as to kill other organisms that have emotions, memories, and awareness of their existence as humans or the closest thing to it IS the point of the film. It's about questioning the nature of humanity. Suggesting that he's grown in a vat means that he's in the same childlike state as the rest of them, i.e. he potentially doesn't fully understand the moral and ethical choices he's had to make in order to perform these killings. Everything about the character's mien says that he does, so making him a replicant simply defies the presentation and development of the character throughout the film. It's a fucking "gotcha" mystery that idiots have thrown in there because they want a Hollywood twist and didn't actually stop to think about the story in the first place. Witness Ridley Scott and pretty much everything he's done since Thelma & Louise...

I don't think that quite works. Killing is a quintessentially human characteristic, and really has nothing to do with being a machine. Now you can be methodical in your killing as Roy, and as Deckard , which gives you a certain robotic quality, but you can also stay your hand as Roy, and as Deckard, which implies empathy, another quintessentially human characteristic. Now Roy is clearly a machine, but I think Ridley left it purposefully ambiguous as to whether Deckard was. Really, the movie works either way. In fact, it may work slightly better if the three most human characters in the film Rachel, Deckard, and Roy were all replicants. This goes to the point of what exactly does it mean to be human, and to the Tyrell logo, more human than human. Although both points are also addressed if we just don't know what the fuck Deckard is. Isn't this all moot anyway, I could have sworn Ridley came out and said Deckard was a replicant.