Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login
Movies MOBILE
Byrne Robotics | Movies Page of 2 Next >>
Topic: Blade Runner 2049 Post Reply | Post New Topic
Author
Message
Anthony J Lombardi
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 January 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 9411
Posted: 08 May 2017 at 3:52pm | IP Logged | 1 post reply

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mjiqa-PWGQY
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matthew Chartrand
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United States
Posts: 1092
Posted: 08 May 2017 at 4:39pm | IP Logged | 2 post reply



  So, I guess Dekkard was not a Replicant.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Doug Jones
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2125
Posted: 08 May 2017 at 9:54pm | IP Logged | 3 post reply

I hope not. I hated that idea!
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Byrne

Beam Me Up, Scotty!

Joined: 11 May 2005
Posts: 108080
Posted: 09 May 2017 at 5:07am | IP Logged | 4 post reply

So, I guess Dekkard was not a Replicant.

++++

I hope not. I hated that idea!

With a "new Bladerunner" unearthing a "long buried secret" I would not be too sure this idea is not in the mix, or is the mix!

Back to Top profile | search
 
Doug Jones
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 16 April 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2125
Posted: 09 May 2017 at 3:08pm | IP Logged | 5 post reply

If Ridley Scott's 2014 interview about the subject holds up, I suspect the needle may be leaning toward "In"...
Back to Top profile | search
 
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5269
Posted: 09 May 2017 at 6:34pm | IP Logged | 6 post reply


Even less interest in this than in ALIEN: COVENANT!



Back to Top profile | search
 
Didier Yvon Paul Fayolle
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 25 January 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 4961
Posted: 09 May 2017 at 7:59pm | IP Logged | 7 post reply

Looks nice !
Back to Top profile | search | www
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13940
Posted: 10 May 2017 at 8:44am | IP Logged | 8 post reply

I rather strongly believe that BLADE RUNNER should remain a stand-alone film. That's a factor in what has made it an iconic film, I think--it's a one-shot that really hit a nerve with people, despite its initial failure. A nostalgia-milking sequel is probably just gonna dilute that, and give closure to Deckard and his story that may ruin the ambiguity of the first film.

Speaking of which, I certainly won't be surprised if the "Deckard as a Replicant" idea is in this film, given Ridley Scott's involvement. I don't necessarily come down on that side of the argument, but I do like the fact that some of the many versions of BLADE RUNNER ask the question, while leaving the answer ambiguous. That sort of paranoia and questioning of one's identity seem rather Phillip K. Dick-esque, to me, but I'd rather there not be a definitive answer to that question. Scott has made his own thoughts clear, yes, but the question has never been answered onscreen...and now it might be. Sigh.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Petter Myhr Ness
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 02 July 2009
Location: Norway
Posts: 2626
Posted: 11 May 2017 at 3:18pm | IP Logged | 9 post reply

I was surprised to learn that Harrison Ford was doing this. He's been pretty vocal about not liking the original movie (though he's "softened" his tone a bit in latter years).

Anyways, if Deckard is in it he can't really be a replicant, can he, because of their limited life span? Unless they to the typical sequel move and turn everything we learned about replicants upside down.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Shaun Barry
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 08 December 2008
Location: United States
Posts: 5269
Posted: 11 May 2017 at 5:36pm | IP Logged | 10 post reply


Harrison Ford returning to the last of his three most iconic film roles, more than 30 years after the original?

What could possibly go wrong...?





Edited by Shaun Barry on 11 May 2017 at 5:37pm
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13940
Posted: 11 May 2017 at 9:05pm | IP Logged | 11 post reply

I'm gonna say this right now--if BLADE RUNNER had needed a sequel, we would have gotten one within a reasonable amount of time after its release. 

Given the deluge of counterfeit and decades-late, nostalgia-milking sequels/prequels/reboots (STAR WARS, DIE HARD, INDIANA JONES, TERMINATOR, ALIEN, etc., etc., etc.), I think there needs to be some sort of statute of limitations for sequels. Maybe ten years after the original, tops.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Rodrigo castellanos
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 03 July 2012
Location: Uruguay
Posts: 165
Posted: 12 May 2017 at 1:30am | IP Logged | 12 post reply

I agree with most of the forum members' opinions in that I don't feel Blade Runner needs a sequel or continuation in any way.

Having said that, I have to say the trailer does look nice...
Back to Top profile | search
 
Matt Reed
Byrne Robotics Security

Robotmod

Joined: 16 April 2004
Posts: 31866
Posted: 30 August 2017 at 5:09pm | IP Logged | 13 post reply

This is the first of three shorts being released on YouTube ahead of the premiere of BLADE RUNNER 2049 on October 6.  All three take place between the original film and the sequel.  Click on the link to watch "2036: Nexus Dawn". 

Back to Top profile | search
 
Shane Matlock
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 August 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 726
Posted: 30 August 2017 at 6:16pm | IP Logged | 14 post reply

When I first heard Blade Runner was going to get a sequel I thought it was a terrible idea, but I have to say the trailers and the short film "2036: Nexus Dawn" have actually got me wanting to see it. I'm kind of glad Ridley Scott isn't directing it, because I haven't really cared much for his last two Alien outings.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7678
Posted: 31 August 2017 at 8:48am | IP Logged | 15 post reply

Not seen the original.

There are so many versions now, I'm not sure which one to watch. There's the theatrical version, Director's Cut, 1992 cut and final cut. Those are the ones I know of. What's next, Assistant Composer's Secretary's Cut?

Which one should I watch, guys? And please don't say all four. I have no inclination to do that. ;-)
Back to Top profile | search
 
Shane Matlock
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 August 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 726
Posted: 31 August 2017 at 5:12pm | IP Logged | 16 post reply

My favorite version is the theatrical version but I don't think I'm in the majority there as a lot of folks hate the voice over that was foisted on Ridley Scott. I have seen the first director's cut but none of the rest even though I have a bluray that has them all on it, so honestly not sure which is the best version, just know that I loved the theatrical cut likely because it was the one I saw first. 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Peter Martin
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 March 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 9910
Posted: 31 August 2017 at 5:43pm | IP Logged | 17 post reply

I have never been a big fan of Blade Runner. I prefer the Director's Cut to the original theatrical release, but still the film -- for me -- benefits more from isolated moments of high quality (Roy Batty's final words, the stunning look of San Angeles) than from a  compelling narrative whole.

 And it's a horrible adaptation of Dick's novel; it leaves out many brilliant elements and basically ignores the book's tenets.

The trailer for the sequel makes me want to avoid it.

Robbie, do yourself a favour and just read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Shane Matlock
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 August 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 726
Posted: 01 September 2017 at 12:24am | IP Logged | 18 post reply

I'm a huge Philip K. Dick fan, have all of his books, but I thought Blade Runner was a great film and while it's true that it's a crappy adaptation of the Dick novel, it's still a visionary film, worth watching for the scenery alone. I basically just look at the movie and book as two separate entities doing their own thing, likely because Ridley Scott never even finished reading the book. Dick died before the film was completed but he did like the excerpts of the film that he saw. Story wise, the film moves at a pretty slow pace, but I feel it's one of Ridley Scott's best films (along with Alien) and all of the actors in it give a pretty great performance, Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer in particular. I do think you should read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? But don't skip the movie, Robbie. They're both great. The Guardian lists it as the 3rd best science fiction film of all time. 

https://www.theguardian.com/film/2010/oct/21/blade-runner-sc ott-science


Edited by Shane Matlock on 01 September 2017 at 12:30am
Back to Top profile | search
 
Shane Matlock
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 August 2012
Location: United States
Posts: 726
Posted: 01 September 2017 at 12:42am | IP Logged | 19 post reply

By the way, Robbie, if you want the actual director's cut, although the 1992 version is called the Director's Cut, it's not really as Scott wasn't able to work on it much due to working on Thelma and Louise. The actual director's cut is the 2007 Final Cut where Ridley Scott had complete control over everything. But again, my personal favorite is the theatrical version, which tends to be how I am with most films, as that's the film I first fell in love with even if it's not the one the director wanted. See also: the Star Wars special editions, ET: The Director's Cut, etc.

Also there are an unbelievable 7 different versions of Blade Runner!
Back to Top profile | search
 
John Popa
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 20 March 2008
Posts: 2751
Posted: 01 September 2017 at 5:49am | IP Logged | 20 post reply

That sort of paranoia and questioning of one's identity seem rather Phillip K. Dick-esque, to me, but I'd rather there not be a definitive answer to that question. Scott has made his own thoughts clear, yes, but the question has never been answered onscreen...and now it might be.

-----

It was also answered definitively by Philip K. Dick, who created it. Are we only crusaders for fidelity to source material if it's super hero movies?
Back to Top profile | search
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7678
Posted: 01 September 2017 at 6:18am | IP Logged | 21 post reply

7 versions? Wow. 

Thanks for the info, Shane, I'll settle on one version soon.
Back to Top profile | search
 
Joe Smith
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 29 August 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 5620
Posted: 01 September 2017 at 9:59pm | IP Logged | 22 post reply

I only recently watched this about 4 years ago and was mesmerized.
Theatrical cut. Darryl Hannah was so good it scared the shit out of me.
Back to Top profile | search | www e-mail
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13940
Posted: 01 September 2017 at 10:13pm | IP Logged | 23 post reply

For proper historical context, I'd go with the theatrical cut. For the best overall viewing experience, I'd go with the 2007 Final Cut, which dispenses with the much-maligned narration and tacked-on epilogue.

Watching both would be the ideal choice, since it provides great insight into the film's evolution, and how much of a difference a few tweaks can make.

Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 
Robbie Parry
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 17 June 2007
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 7678
Posted: 02 September 2017 at 6:26am | IP Logged | 24 post reply

Cheers, Greg. I might do that. I will do that

I don't mind watching two (and one of them was always going to be the theatrical cut), but I found the numerous versions to be overwhelming. Who said choice was a good thing? ;-) 
Back to Top profile | search
 
Greg Kirkman
Byrne Robotics Member


Joined: 12 May 2006
Location: United States
Posts: 13940
Posted: 02 September 2017 at 10:35am | IP Logged | 25 post reply

The US/Theatrical Cut and the International Cut are virtually identical. The only difference is, like, 15 seconds of extra violence left out of the US version. 

The Workprint Cut (included on the Blu-Ray) is literally an early workprint of the film (with temporary music, main titles, etc), and was never originally intended for public consumption. It was accidentally screened at a revival theater, and attracted much attention and excitement for being a "new" and better version of the film. So, it was used as the basis for the rushed 1992 Director's Cut, which Ridley Scott was unable to devote his full attention to. 

The 1992 Director's Cut was the one which cemented the film's reputation as a sci-fi classic in the 90s, and was the first cut released on DVD. It was the go-to version when the film's cult following exploded in the 90s because it was a less ham-fisted version of the film, and allowed the visuals and story to breathe without that clunky narration. The 2007 Final Cut is a refined version of that, with Scott's full participation and approval.
Back to Top profile | search e-mail
 

Page of 2 Next >>
  Post Reply | Post New Topic |

Forum Jump

 Active Topics | Member List | Search | Help | Register | Login

You are currently viewing the MOBILE version of the site.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL SITE