AncalagonTheBlack Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 Quote director Denis Villeneuve (Arrival) shared both the title and release date of the forthcoming Blade Runner sequel: It’s called Blade Runner 2049 and will be released in theaters on October 6, 2017. While the setting is again dystopian Los Angeles, the movie will take place 30 years after the original, which was set in 2019. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martini Sigil Posted October 11, 2016 Share Posted October 11, 2016 I prefer that they're doing a sequel, rather than a re-boot/re-make... My guess is that in retrospect, they feel they missed the boat regarding a potential franchise... So maybe if this doesn't bomb, Ryan Gossling can carry the torch. regarding trailers... I want to see one too.... m problem is that I'm a sucker for them.... I've seen good trailers for too many bad movies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Still so unsure about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted October 13, 2016 Share Posted October 13, 2016 Huh. How did I miss the previous 2047 sequels? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Writhen Posted November 8, 2016 Share Posted November 8, 2016 Read the book though, if you haven't. The "world" is more expansive than I think even the first film lets on. There are a lot of approaches they could be taking with this. Spoiler Add to that all the ambiguity about Deckard and Rachel's relationship and the possibility of Deckard being a replicant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Movie looks beautifully shot. Deakins Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 That music..... Gets me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GallowKnight Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 I don't really know what to make of that. I looks pretty but I'm still not convinced of the necessity for a Blade Runner sequel. So, I will remain sceptical until I have actually seen the whole movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stannis Eats No Peaches Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Blade Runner doesn't need a sequel, but I have faith in Villeneuve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Antony Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 22 minutes ago, Stannis Eats No Peaches said: I have faith in Villeneuve. Guy is top notch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ljkeane Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Yeah, they can just take my money now on this one. I'll definitely be seeing this at the cinema. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ferrum Aeternum Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 This wasn't on my radar before but I am definitely hyped now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Looks incredible, and after Arrival I have complete faith in Villeneuve. They also have Ford back and he makes movies exceptionally well. Gosling is a great actor too. Mostly, though, it's Arrival. Arrival was incredible, poignant, gorgeous and understated. It was the most Blade Runner/2001 sci-fi movie I've seen in 40 years, allowing visuals and expression to tell the story in a way that no dialogue or backstory could. It was perfect for Blade Runner. Having Gosling and Ford be pensive and thinking and allowing them that is Blade Runner's milieu, and there's no director alive that can do it better (including Ridley Scott). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rhom Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 34 minutes ago, Ferrum Aeternum said: This wasn't on my radar before but I am definitely hyped now. That's where I'm at with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generalzod Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 If Deckard is a replicant (and assuming he's immune to the 4 year life cycle), why does he age? Ridley Scott says Deckard IS a replicant, but the ambiguity (Much like the end of John Carpenter's THE THING) was a great debate to have and gave the original film added symbolism, metaphor, and staying power. Now I suppose the sequel will have to declare on Decker's status. Bummer. That said, despite the fact that by all accounts Ryan Gosling is a grade A asshole in real life (rude & arrogant), I hope the sequel is amazing and is one of those Empire Strikes Back/Godfather 2/Wrath of Khan sorts of sequels that just deepens and arguably improves on the original. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Replicants age; they aren't nonhuman or nonorganic. They're just created. In fact, it makes sense that he ages as a way to defeat the 4 year cycle; the easiest way to replicate that would be, well, to actually just copy the human body. it makes him less powerful, but more long-lived. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
generalzod Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Hmm. How would you define a replicant then? What you're describing is more of Deckard as clone than something that is manufactured with designer eyes plugged into a body (and they also manufacture snakes and the like). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leofric Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 1 hour ago, generalzod said: Hmm. How would you define a replicant then? What you're describing is more of Deckard as clone than something that is manufactured with designer eyes plugged into a body (and they also manufacture snakes and the like). Replicants are basically bio-engineered human bodies with manufactured personalities and skillsets, since they are created as adults with no childhoods or developmental periods. They aren't clones, because they are not copies of existing humans, they're new and usually improved versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted December 19, 2016 Share Posted December 19, 2016 Right. Replicants are absolutely manufactured, they aren't bred - but they aren't inorganic. They are humans, genetically. If they weren't, you wouldn't need a weird-ass Turing test to detect them, you could just get a skin sample. Even when they look at the skin of the snake they can tell it's genetically modified (the patent info on the skin cells) but they are still skin cells. And when the replicant is talking with Tyrell, it's all about biochemistry and cellular mechanical information. Replicants aren't androids or robots. They're humans that are created, often with greater capacities than normal humans - but still human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theda Baratheon Posted December 20, 2016 Share Posted December 20, 2016 I don't think it's going to surpass the original because it's just the best movie ever in my opinion lol I love it so much but despite myself and prior nervousness I really am excited about this now... I don't think Deckard not being a replicant takes anything away from the power of the original where most of the philosophy comes from Roy ... On Roy...I would have loved if Rutger Hauer had a tiny cameo in this but I suppose it might mess up the story as hes probably still pretty recognisable. And as others have said the replicants are organic, they're manufactured yes but I think it's within the internal logic of the universe that they could age. I personally never liked the idea of Roy as a replicant but I suppose it's similar to the book where there's a police officer who never realised he is one. And on to the book...I would LOVE this film to incorporate some of the elements of the novel To Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Because there's so much fantastic stuff that could add to the world building. The mood machines, more emphasis on fake animals, mercerism, buster friendly and his friendly friends ect Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.