Blade Runner 2049 (film)

[MinionZombie]

Thoughts? The one thing that slightly irks me is that it - seemingly, at least (who knows if there's some sort of weird plotting logic loop hidden in there somewhere ... probably not, but you never know) - that Deckard isn't a replicant. That was a theory that I always quite liked and subscribed to because of the origami unicorn (was that inserted into the '92 Directors Cut, or was it there earlier on?) Anyway - it looks and sounds right (I had tingles) and I think Gosling's going to nail this.

[bassman]

With Villeneuve directing and Deakins as cinematographer, have zero doubt that this will be a visual treat. Just hopefully it can also live up to the BR reputation in all other departments.

[Moon Knight]

Never seen the original. Should I?

[JDP]

Never seen the original. Should I? You have never seen Blade Runner? Are you from, like, this planet???

[EvilNed]

Never seen the original. Should I?

[MinionZombie]

Never seen the original. Should I? Dear Lord, Moon ... please say you're joking.

[Neil]

Never seen the original. Should I? It's slow and clunky... But a work of art in truth... Yes watch it, if only for the best death monologue ever... Now which version to see? The cinematic or directors? Quite different really...

[MinionZombie]

It's slow and clunky... But a work of art in truth... Yes watch it, if only for the best death monologue ever... Now which version to see? The cinematic or directors? Quite different really... "Slow and clunky"? For a teenager, perhaps (when I first saw it I didn't think much of it - as a teenager - but then a few years later I dug it and I dig it more and more every time I see it. Just go with the 2007 Director's Cut - it's a slightly finessed version of the 1992 Director's Cut - and so is ultimately the best version to see. Avoid the early cocked up version with the dumbo voice over featuring a decidedly bored and unwilling Harrison Ford (who, justifiably, didn't want to do the V/O).

[Neil]

"Slow and clunky"? For a teenager, perhaps (when I first saw it I didn't think much of it - as a teenager - but then a few years later I dug it and I dig it more and more every time I see it. Just go with the 2007 Director's Cut - it's a slightly finessed version of the 1992 Director's Cut - and so is ultimately the best version to see. Avoid the early cocked up version with the dumbo voice over featuring a decidedly bored and unwilling Harrison Ford (who, justifiably, didn't want to do the V/O). I was being tactical with my choice of words... It's certainly no action scifi flick. It's unusual and paced...

[bassman]

"Slow and clunky"? For a teenager, perhaps (when I first saw it I didn't think much of it - as a teenager - but then a few years later I dug it and I dig it more and more every time I see it. Just go with the 2007 Director's Cut - it's a slightly finessed version of the 1992 Director's Cut - and so is ultimately the best version to see. Avoid the early cocked up version with the dumbo voice over featuring a decidedly bored and unwilling Harrison Ford (who, justifiably, didn't want to do the V/O). I'd seen an interview with Denis Villeneuve (Blade Runner 2049 director) where he says that due to it being the ONLY edit for so many years, he actually thinks of the original voice over cut as the true version of the film. Cause for concern?....

[shootemindehead]

If Deckard is a robot in this, I won't bother. The idea of an OAP robot is thick. My prefered cut has always been the original 1982 one where, to me, he was a man. That idea always made more sense than Scott's clumsy idea of making him a replicant. There's just too much logic fail going on with that. That said, the teaser is pretty good.

[EvilNed]

The one thing that slightly irks me is that it - seemingly, at least (who knows if there's some sort of weird plotting logic loop hidden in there somewhere ... probably not, but you never know) - that Deckard isn't a replicant. That was a theory that I always quite liked and subscribed to because of the origami unicorn (was that inserted into the '92 Directors Cut, or was it there earlier on?) I assumed the exact opposite. Ryan Gosling is a Blade runner sent to take down a replicant - Deckard. Deckard has aged, yes but I suppose he would be a replicant of the same stock as Rachel. A experimental model designed to be as human as possible. It's possible that ageing was part of that.

[shootemindehead]

Why would a robot age? Why make a robot that age?

[MinionZombie]

I assumed the exact opposite. Ryan Gosling is a Blade runner sent to take down a replicant - Deckard. Deckard has aged, yes but I suppose he would be a replicant of the same stock as Rachel. A experimental model designed to be as human as possible. It's possible that ageing was part of that. Yeah, I'd thought of this after a few days of mulling over the trailer. That would be my hope, too. It did seem like Rachael was, perhaps, something different from Roy Batty, and that Deckard, certainly, was something altogether different. I'm not sure whether it'll be a case of Gosling hunting down Ford, perhaps it'll more likely be him tracking him down for assistance or guidance? Why would a robot age? Why make a robot that age? Why make a robot that looks and acts like a human at all?

[bassman]

I just recently read a lengthy article featuring the head creative minds behind both films and they say that 2049 is based on a question raised in the original film. Supposedly nobody did or will expect it, but once you see this question asked again in 2049, it's a sort of "why didn't I see that coming??" moment? I just watched the final cut today(as well as the phenomenal Dangerous Days doc) and I'm still drawing a blank as to what this core question may be if it's supposed to be unpredictable yet obvious at the same time....