Blade Runner 2 anyone?

[HEADPHONES]

 

Has alot to live up to.

Hope it's a goodun.

[Sarg]

oh god the 1st one was sh1t

[Alpinaman]

^^^^^^^^^^^

 

 

WHAT!!!!!!!!

[Blocko]

The first one was good for it's time but having watched that trailer I'm not feeling this at all

[Krissgti]

I am. I'm really quite excited for it. Trainspotting 2, Ghost in the shell and now this. 2017 is shaping up not to badly I think

[Ekona]

Original was one of the most tedious films I've ever watched. I will assume this one will be better, because it couldn't be worse.

[Stutopia]

They'll ruin it, there hasn't been a good sequel since Wayne's World 2. The original BR wasn't perfect but the Director's Cut was magnificent. Probably the best set design of any movie except Alien.

 

You can't make ambiguous movies any more, everything has to be spoon fed to mouth breathers or they choke on their popcorn and the focus groups shut it down.

[Ekona]

"Book them, and they will come. "

[Alpinaman]

Ha ha..

 

Summed up very well..

[TT350]

The book by Philip K Dick was better than the film. Is BR2 based on a 2nd book?

 

Loved the final scene with Rutger Hauer. How the cyborgs were suddenly more human than their creators.

 

And the soundtrack too.

Edited December 19, 2016 by TT350

[coldel]

I thought the first film was fantastic, watching it as a kid it just blew you away - the drizzly weather neon lit scenery, the way it turned the perceived bad guys into the more human good ones, made you rethink why Ford was doing what he did. It was also one of those first films to put the future as something other than shiny lovely tech (like we saw with something like Star Trek) and more gritty and actually something you feared rather than looked forwards to.

[Aashenfox]

One of the most artful, meaningful epics on what it is to be human, ever made. I'm worried that no.2 will not be able to do justice to its predecessor.

 

If an alien came to me and said 'what does it mean to be human?', I'd send him to watch Bladerunner and Watchmen and then report back if he had any questions.

[coldel]

...so was Deckard a replicant or not

[coldel]

I am. I'm really quite excited for it. Trainspotting 2, Ghost in the shell and now this. 2017 is shaping up not to badly I think

 

...Mary Poppins 2

[Aashenfox]

...so was Deckard a replicant or not

 

Not (based on theatrical version, my opinion, intimations were red herrings).

 

EDIT: If you don't want to know exactly how the movie handles the question cos you've never seen it or don't remember, there's no need to read this until after you've watched the Director's cut.

 

 

In the Director's cut, the origami unicorn scene leaves little to interpretation, it is supposed to be understood that Deckard himself is a replicant at that point. There are various other red herrings throughout the movie, as I referred to above. In the theatrical cut, the red herrings are still there, but the actual question is not empirically answered and therefore left to interpretation, I therefore choose to believe that he is human, or in a version of the movie where he may or may not be. I loved the director's cut, but never did like the way they basically answered that question ultimately, the movie would have been better if it had been left totally ambiguous forever, as the red herrings are really cool, the photographs in his flat, and how replicants have a thing for photos. But then there's the fact that none of the people that immediately recognised Roy Batty as a replicant, also recognised Deckard as a replicant outwardly, plus he seemed to have human level physical strength. Maybe the second movie will reveal that Gaff was just fking with him, that he wasn't a replicant, I'd be happier then, but happier still if it had just been left to the imagination.

 

Edited December 20, 2016 by Aashenfox