The Blade Runner sequel is officially titled Blade Runner 2049
38 replies, posted
[IMG]http://admin.collider.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/blade-runner-2049-villeneuve-scott-ford-gosling-600x400.jpg[/IMG]
[QUOTE]Generally speaking, we've been referring to the upcoming sequel to Ridley Scott's 1982 sci-fi classic with a grab bag of shorthand titles.
Stuff like [I]The Untitled Blade Runner Sequel[/I], or [I]The New Blade Runner[/I], or [I]Director Denis Villeneuve's Upcoming Blade Runner Movie That Has Ryan Gosling In It[/I]. Today, that all ends, as the official title has been announced.
[I]
Blade Runner 2049[/I].
There [I]is[/I] a new picture out, however, with Scott, Villeneuve, Gosling, and Harrison Ford chatting over some[I] Blade Runner[/I] weaponry.
The original was set in 2019, so it's good that they're tacking on an extra 30 years because the Los Angeles of today really doesn't look anything like the dystopian vision Scott wowed audiences with way back when. But hey — there's still time.
[I]
Blade Runner 2049[/I] is scheduled to arrive in theaters on October 6th, 2017.
[/QUOTE]
[URL="http://www.theverge.com/2016/10/6/13187950/blade-runner-2049-title-harrison-ford-ryan-gosling"]The Verge[/URL]
[I]Please dont fuck up, Please dont fuck up, Please dont fuck up...[/I]
I wonder how the setting will change with an extra 30 years. They already had flying cars, androids, and space colonies.
Big part of the original for me was the music by Vangelis. It brings the atmosphere in the movie to a whole new level, I can't imagine that movie with out it. Same was with his music in The Bounty.
The only thing bugging me about this is they have another writer besides Fancher on.
Fancher worked on the original and the other writer Michael Green wrote the screenplay for Green Lantern.
Sans Green, everyone else involved are top notch and at the very least it will look phenomenal with Roger Deakins on cinematography.
Why did this need a sequel?
denis villeneuve is a fantastic director, i'm super excited to see both this and arrival in november
[QUOTE=Firefox42;51161970]I wonder how the setting will change with an extra 30 years. They already had flying cars, androids, and space colonies.[/QUOTE]
Concept art indicates they are following on correctly. It's 'updated' but it still feels very Syd Mead in design.
[img]http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/2016/07/blade-runner-2.jpeg[/img]
[img]http://cdn-static.denofgeek.com/sites/denofgeek/files/styles/gallery_adv/public/2016/07/blade-runner-2-concept-art.jpg?itok=Pk9LGoHI[/img]
[img]http://static.srcdn.com/slir/w612-h380-q90-c612:380/wp-content/uploads/Blade-Runner-2-City-EW-Concept-Art.jpg[/img]
Dennis has said they film pretty much always at night when doing exteriors but introducing snow will allow them to keep scenes quite bright whilst needed, still keeping within the confines of darkness.
Hard to slate it at the moment since we know 0 story details. Doesn't help that Ridley's drafts of the story kept changing every time he mentioned his ideas for it.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51161988]Why did this need a sequel?[/QUOTE]
money
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51161988]Why did this need a sequel?[/QUOTE]
I'd rather have a sequel to expand an amazing universe, rather than a reboot that erases the whole timeline and just tries to cash in on the name.
Even if it's not good, everything is better than a reboot.
[QUOTE=DMGaina;51162009]I'd rather have a sequel to expand an amazing universe, rather than a reboot that erases the whole timeline and just tries to cash in on the name.
Even if it's not good, everything is better than a reboot.[/QUOTE]
It's also completely possible for them to cover unused elements in the book and dare I say the sequel books. Canon is arguable but Dick's estate did allow them to be written and whilst they don't compare to the original there are some interesting ideas in them like using real people as a direct visual basis for replicants.
Would be cool to see some things from the game incorporated. The implication that multiple/most of the cops in LAPD are planted replicants is pretty crazy but does work well with the corporate-control element of cyberpunk.
I'd rather it didn't have Harrison Ford in it at all to be honest - android's don't age (at least in my book), and it's gonna be pretty hard to convince anyone that he's still 40. Ridley Scott has said he's an android, and though I'd like to keep it at the speculation, having old Harrison Ford do his role kinda confirms that he isn't an android, making all the hints in the original pointless. Don't get me wrong I love the man, but I really like that Deckard's story ends open ended in Blade Runner. Really I just love Blade Runner.
Sure, make a sequel in the same universe, just leave the old story line alone. It wasn't a grand event - it was a small story in a very, very big city on a pretty big planet. It doesn't need to be more.
It'll be nice if this is good but I'm not setting any expectations, given that any sequel or remake this long after the original is essentially an unrelated film. Cautiously optimistic about the inclusion of Harrison Ford, since he's one of my favorite actors.
Will the sequel completely throw it out of the Alien canon?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51162061]I'd rather it didn't have Harrison Ford in it at all to be honest - android's don't age (at least in my book), and it's gonna be pretty hard to convince anyone that he's still 40. Ridley Scott has said he's an android, and though I'd like to keep it at the speculation, having old Harrison Ford do his role kinda confirms that he isn't an android, making all the hints in the original pointless. Don't get me wrong I love the man, but I really like that Deckard's story ends open ended in Blade Runner. Really I just love Blade Runner.
Sure, make a sequel in the same universe, just leave the old story line alone. It wasn't a grand event - it was a small story in a very, very big city on a pretty big planet. It doesn't need to be more.[/QUOTE]
It could be a case of this is the man that BR1 Deckard was based off of. That was the plot for the first sequel book to Do Androids Dream although in that book it was Roy Batty's human base that showed up.
There's multiple ways it could go some more interesting than others but for now it's a long wait.
[editline]6th October 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zeos;51162119]Will the sequel completely throw it out of the Alien canon?[/QUOTE]
Was the Alien canon remotely important?
[QUOTE=DMGaina;51162009]I'd rather have a sequel to expand an amazing universe, rather than a reboot that erases the whole timeline and just tries to cash in on the name.
Even if it's not good, everything is better than a reboot.[/QUOTE]
I think his point is BR easily stands on its own, living on through its legacy, and nobody should try to replicate lightning in a jar. Classic cult movies like BR are best left untouched, and nobody (much less with Ridley Scott on board in 2017) will come close to the original.
THEY BETTER NOT FUCK THIS UP.
Blade Runner the epitome of Sci-fi.
It's been inspiration for all things dystopian, spanning all mediums of expression. And specifically to me, a huge inspiration.
The one who screws this up has their special spot in hell.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51161988]Why did this need a sequel?[/QUOTE]
Why does any movie need a sequel?
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51162061]I'd rather it didn't have Harrison Ford in it at all to be honest - android's don't age (at least in my book), and it's gonna be pretty hard to convince anyone that he's still 40. Ridley Scott has said he's an android, and though I'd like to keep it at the speculation, having old Harrison Ford do his role kinda confirms that he isn't an android, making all the hints in the original pointless. Don't get me wrong I love the man, but I really like that Deckard's story ends open ended in Blade Runner. Really I just love Blade Runner.
Sure, make a sequel in the same universe, just leave the old story line alone. It wasn't a grand event - it was a small story in a very, very big city on a pretty big planet. It doesn't need to be more.[/QUOTE]
If he is human(this is the first time I hear he isn't) and if he has a minor role they could use the Michael Douglas technique from Ant Man to make him look younger. Or use the same explanation as in Terminator Genysis, where the skin is actually live tissue that ages, it makes sense. In the original BR, androids only live a few years, so whether or not they actually do age or not is unclear. To be clear, I have not read the books or anything, I only watched the movie.
[QUOTE=Firetornado;51161988]Why did this need a sequel?[/QUOTE]
Some people have a craving for oldschool sci-fi settings, including the way they imagined the future would look like back then.
[img]http://199.101.98.242/media/images/157-San_Francisco_Rush_2049-8.jpg[/img]
we finally get a spiritual successor
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51162061]I'd rather it didn't have Harrison Ford in it at all to be honest - android's don't age (at least in my book), and it's gonna be pretty hard to convince anyone that he's still 40. Ridley Scott has said he's an android, and though I'd like to keep it at the speculation, having old Harrison Ford do his role kinda confirms that he isn't an android, making all the hints in the original pointless. Don't get me wrong I love the man, but I really like that Deckard's story ends open ended in Blade Runner. Really I just love Blade Runner.
Sure, make a sequel in the same universe, just leave the old story line alone. It wasn't a grand event - it was a small story in a very, very big city on a pretty big planet. It doesn't need to be more.[/QUOTE]
They can cook up some plotline saying that Deckard is a replicant that ages, or something like that. In the theatrical cut Deckard says Rachel doesn't have the 4 year lifespan, it would be interesting to see if both cuts are fused into one canon using that as an explanation.
[QUOTE=Zeos;51162119]Will the sequel completely throw it out of the Alien canon?[/QUOTE]
If they don't touch on space technology or turn androids into some weird shit, no.
[QUOTE=AntonioR;51161971]Big part of the original for me was the music by Vangelis. It brings the atmosphere in the movie to a whole new level, I can't imagine that movie with out it. Same was with his music in The Bounty.[/QUOTE]
I love Vangelis The stuff he did with Jon Anderson is incredible
[Media]https://youtu.be/tRDhYT4FPd8[/media]
[QUOTE=Zeos;51162119]Will the sequel completely throw it out of the Alien canon?[/QUOTE]
not likely, since the events of prometheus don't even happen for another 50 years. they may not have any passing reference to weyland or anything, but unless there's a strict "no crazy ancient beings" sign, it's still safe to say they're in the same universe.
[QUOTE=spekter;51161972]The only thing bugging me about this is they have another writer besides Fancher on.
Fancher worked on the original and the other writer Michael Green wrote the screenplay for Green Lantern.[/QUOTE]
Yea everyone's quick to bring up Green Lantern when talking about that guy, but I don't really think that's fair. He was just one of four writers on that, and even then who knows what the producers were demanding. That film was just a total mess. This film has a far better creative team overall so I'm not worried about it.
the only real negative I've heard so far for this is no Vangelis. Sicario did have a pretty solid soundtrack tho so it's at least not a total loss.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;51162061]I'd rather it didn't have Harrison Ford in it at all to be honest - android's don't age (at least in my book), and it's gonna be pretty hard to convince anyone that he's still 40. Ridley Scott has said he's an android, and though I'd like to keep it at the speculation, having old Harrison Ford do his role kinda confirms that he isn't an android, making all the hints in the original pointless. Don't get me wrong I love the man, but I really like that Deckard's story ends open ended in Blade Runner. Really I just love Blade Runner.
Sure, make a sequel in the same universe, just leave the old story line alone. It wasn't a grand event - it was a small story in a very, very big city on a pretty big planet. It doesn't need to be more.[/QUOTE]
Well hopefully he has the same acting energy that he had in the new Star Wars. At least then his character will have something behind it rather than the boring shit he's done in the last decade.
[QUOTE=King Tiger;51163663]Well hopefully he has the same acting energy that he had in the new Star Wars. At least then his character will have something behind it rather than the boring shit he's done in the last decade.[/QUOTE]
he was practically a fart in the wind in that movie.
[QUOTE=Pops;51163715]he was practically a fart in the wind in that movie.[/QUOTE]
No way, he was the heart of that movie once he showed up.
I hope they don't kill him off like star wars half way through the film.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.