Blade Runner 2

[WarpFactorZ]

Apparently, the much anticipated (or not, depending on your view) sequel will hit the screens in January 2018. Although, November 2019 would have been much more appropriate.

http://nerdist.com/blade-runner-2-release-date-harrison-ford-ryan-gosling/

Sounds like a decent production line-up, too:

In addition to [Denis] Villeneuve directing ... Ridley Scott is returning to produce. The original film’s co-writer Hampton Fancher is penning the screenplay, and Harrison Ford will return as the O.G. Blade Runner, Rick Deckard, for some amount of time... and Ryan Gosling is attached to star. The original’s look was a huge part of its appeal, and unfortunately the cinematographer of that movie, Jordan Cronenweth, passed away in 1996, BUT they’ve signed Roger Deakins to shoot the new one, and he’s only the best working today.

 

[davejames]

Don't know if this is really a good idea or not, but I'm definitely a lot more optimistic with Villeneuve directing than Ridley Scott, since he did such a great job with Sicario and seems like he could probably capture the style and mood of the original movie really well.

 

[dahj]

Blade Runner is one of those films that really doesn't need a sequel.

I hope they do something good with it, and not just milk it for brand name and nostalgia...

 

[davejames]

Yeah, regardless of whether Deckard really was a replicant or not, I've always thought that possibility and ambiguity was one of the things that made that original movie so interesting in the first place. And it'll be kind of a shame to no longer have that now.

Plus it seems like they'd have to do a lot of rationalizing now to make the idea work, considering none of the other replicants ever seemed to recognize him as one of their own, and he didn't seem to have their superstrength when fighting Roy or Pris...

 

[Nightowl1701]

*bored film noir voiceover* Even if you made a replicant that lasted a hell of a lot longer than four years... why make one that would age? Rather defeats the purpose of a synthetic human, doesn't it? Especially when it had no special abilities or talents to begin with. You might as well make a human instead, the good old fashioned way. And while Eldon Tyrell was certainly not the sanest of people, he wasn't the type to throw money away either. No, whatever it was that made Rick Deckard so special, a Tyrell serial number on his cells wasn't it...

 

[Tosk]

I'm all for another one, but the fact that Ridley is on board does make me sad that Deckard is almost guaranteed to be a Replicant.

Oh well, make it a good film and I'll be happy.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

Seems like it would be more natural to go with a remake at this point. Given the choice I'd rather see a sequel however pointless it seems (maybe they'll wow me but I doubt it).

I'd rather see a Big Trouble in Little China 2 or Buckaroo Banzai 2 if they had to dip into the vault.

 

[Set Harth]

Although, November 2019 would have been much more appropriate.

*bored film noir voiceover*

 

[HIjol]

I understand the hesitations expressed above, and I have some reservations about a Second, also, but getting to see Harrison in a role he can still pull off - meaning, no more Indy, Han, Clancy, "action-y" stuff - will be good enough for me. We can see about the quality after the viewing. But who, I ask you, who, will do the Origamy?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

^ EJO, of course, he should be chief by now.

 

[HIjol]

From your lips...

 

[davejames]

Seems like it would be more natural to go with a remake at this point. Given the choice I'd rather see a sequel however pointless it seems (maybe they'll wow me but I doubt it).

I'd be fine with a sequel set in that same world; I just don't think we really need to continue Deckard's story from the first movie (unless maybe it had been made a couple years later with him and Rachel still on the run or something, but not after freakin 36 years with Deckard now an old man).

 

[Saul]

January always seems to lack the film prestige value of December, but good luck to them.

I imagine they want to avoid Star Wars in December and give some hungry Sci-Fi fans Harrison Ford once they've finished watching Episode VIII over and over.

 

[JD]

I'm not sure what to make of this one. I know the original is one of the big classic sci-fi movies, but I've never been that fond of it. I've started it a 2 or 3 times, but I don't know if I've made it all the way to the end before I got bored and gave up. It's been quite a few years though, so I've thought about giving it another try.
But, even putting aside my feelings about the original, I don't really see where it's a movie that needs a sequel, especially so long after the original.

 

[davejames]

Yeah I have to admit it's only recently that I've really grown to love the movie and not just appreciate it on an artistic or technical level. I've never had a problem with serious scifi, but for a long while the movie always felt a little too emotionally cold and distant to me.

 

[Christopher]

*bored film noir voiceover* Even if you made a replicant that lasted a hell of a lot longer than four years... why make one that would age? Rather defeats the purpose of a synthetic human, doesn't it?

Who says they have a choice? Everything wears out over time. The immortal robot is a popular fictional trope, but think about it -- most consumer electronics, cars, etc. break down far faster than human beings do. And replicants are synthetic biological organisms, not mechanical ones. Even as synthetics, there's no reason to assume their bodies would be any more capable of perpetual renewal than human bodies are. They'd probably be shorter-lived, all things considered. Evolution has had a lot more time to refine the process of creating biological organisms than the Tyrell Corporation did.

I'd be fine with a sequel set in that same world; I just don't think we really need to continue Deckard's story from the first movie (unless maybe it had been made a couple years later with him and Rachel still on the run or something, but not after freakin 36 years with Deckard now an old man).

The article linked in the first post says that Deckard will return "for some amount of time," which suggests to me that it might be a supporting role -- perhaps comparable to Han's role in The Force Awakens, perhaps more like Leia's. (Or Luke's?)

I'm not sure what to make of this one. I know the original is one of the big classic sci-fi movies, but I've never been that fond of it. I've started it a 2 or 3 times, but I don't know if I've made it all the way to the end before I got bored and gave up.

What version have you watched? The original theatrical cut kinda sucks because of the changes imposed on it, most especially the dreadful narration. (I've heard it claimed that Ford deliberately did a bad job with the narration as a protest, but I think that may be an urban legend.) The later edits without the narration improve the story enormously. I didn't even understand what the story was really about until I saw it without the narration, because the narration in the climax deliberately reinterprets the climactic events in a way that strips the story of its whole point. Once I realized the story it was really telling, it made it a much more fascinating movie. Of all the editions I've seen, I think the Final Cut is the best.

 

[JD]

I've been thinking about giving the Final Cut a try. Wasn't that the one that Ridley Scott actually had the most control over?
From the article's I've read it sounds like the main focus will be on Ryan Gosling's new character, not Harrison Ford as Deckard.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

To me it's only worth making of it can progress the story in a way that adds value to the original. Not if it's just a rehash.

 

[publiusr]

The best possible title for the film would be Tannhauser Gate.

With new CGI, we can see those C-beams glitter.

We see a Tannhauser Gate battle in the movie SOLDIER

Vissar had a concept of a cubic wormhole:
The "thread" or "struts" needed to build Visser's wormholes are negative mass cosmic strings. Cosmologists believe that cosmic strings may have been formed during the early universe. At the boundaries between regions in the early universe, extremely massive ("perhaps an Earth-mass per meter ") two-dimensional features could have been created. In his AV-103 column, John Cramer notes, "…it is questionable (a) whether cosmic strings actually exist in our universe, (b) if they do, whether they can have negative mass and string tension, and (c) whether the tendencies of the wormhole to close up and of the negative-tension cosmic string loop to expand could be precisely balanced to produce a stable Visser wormhole."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE
http://hardsf.org/HSFTWor4.htm

I would have this cubic wormhole damaged. looking like this
https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/munzner_thesis/hyp-med/weeks-fig.jpg
https://graphics.stanford.edu/papers/munzner_thesis/html/node8.html

The c-beams would be attempts to straighten out the edges, which would billow.

This--in my mind--is what stood out so much in Roy's

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

I've heard it claimed that Ford deliberately did a bad job with the narration as a protest, but I think that may be an urban legend.

It is. Ford has said he did the best he could with what he was given. It was a 2002 interview, where he said this:

I delivered it to the best of my ability, given that I had no input. I never thought they'd use it. But I didn't try and sandbag it. It was simply bad narration.