• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Blade Runner 2

Until this trailer, we had only seen Deckard in one setting, his home. Now we've seen him outside at night and inside a poorly lit room (possibly a night club). I think Allyn's supposition is probably right and we don't even see Deckard until the final act.

I'm still cautiously optimistic about this film, although this trailer was a bit more action-y than I would like. Hopefully that comes down to marketing and not a complete reflection of the final product. I still have faith in Denis Villeneuve.
 
Again, one should never trust trailers to be a complete reflection of the final product. Trailers are advertising, and advertising should always be viewed skeptically, because its makers are literally trying to sell you something.
 
I'm sure that one could make a high-ottane action-packed trailer of the first Blade Runner too.

Never trust a trailer. NEVER.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.
 
Christopher said:
Or it could just be that the trailers are playing up his involvement through selective editing. Naturally the return of the original star is something the trailer makers would want to emphasize regardless of how big a part of the actual film he is. I seem to recall the Suicide Squad trailers featuring the Joker (and Batman) rather more heavily than the film did.
Click to expand...
Well, the Joker was originally in a lot more of the movie, so that's not the trailer maker's fault.
As for what you guys are saying about Deckard not popping up until the later parts of the movie, that would make sense. I had originally figure he'd just pop up for the scene in the apartment from the first trailer, deliver some exposition, and then disappear again, so I was surprised he appeared to be in at least one or two more scenes this time .
So I wonder if the we he was talking about are himself and Rachel?
 
JD said:
So I wonder if the we he was talking about are himself and Rachel?
Click to expand...
I highly suspect that's the case. I also suspect that the date carved in the tree that K discovers is a grave marker for Rachael (6 10 21).
 
Emh said:
Until this trailer, we had only seen Deckard in one setting, his home. Now we've seen him outside at night and inside a poorly lit room (possibly a night club). I think Allyn's supposition is probably right and we don't even see Deckard until the final act.
Click to expand...

It's not really my supposition; Ridley Scott has said exactly that: "it’s about finding [Deckard]; he comes in in the third act." The story could have changed since then -- that interview was from 2014 -- so Deckard's actual presence may no longer be limited to just the final forty minutes of the film or so.
 
JD said:
I'm wondering if there was some kind of disaster between the movies, we seem to be seeing a lot of destroyed buildings.
Click to expand...

Wasn't the original film supposed to take place in a post-WW3 environment?

I mean, obviously the city itself wasn't destroyed, but I assumed most of the rest of the world was.
 
Mr. Laser Beam said:
Wasn't the original film supposed to take place in a post-WW3 environment?

I mean, obviously the city itself wasn't destroyed, but I assumed most of the rest of the world was.
Click to expand...

Kevin Dilmore, the Star Trek novelist, had an interesting idea about the backstory to Blade Runner that he shared with me at Shore Leave two years ago -- Blade Runner takes place in the same universe/timeline of Amazon's The Man in the High Castle. His argument, as I recall, was that Blade Runner could depict what the assimilated American West Coast culture has become after sixty years of occupation. It's nothing one could really prove, and it probably isn't an intentional creative decision on the part of anyone involved with TMitHC, and I'm not sure it works with the Easter Eggs Ridley has thrown around about an Alien/Blade Runner connection, but it's certainly an interesting idea that these two Philip K. Dick adaptations could coexist.
 
The original novel mentions a "World War Terminus", that's what got me thinking that the film might also be a postnuclear tale.
 
WarpFactorZ said:
Somewhere up-thread, someone proposed the following which sounds so sly it wouldn't surprise me if it were correct:

The Human race is extinct (save Deckard) and are all Replicants.
Click to expand...

Which is a very phildickian idea. And ties into ideas from DADOES?

In DADOES?, most of the animals have died because of World War Terminus, and they've been replaced with artificial animals. There's no reason that humans couldn't be dying off, too, which opened up a niche for replicants and other artificial humans. Like Rachael, these replicants have no idea that they're not fully human. And, over time, "humanity" becomes more and more artificial as the real humans die off and the replicants take their place. The phildickian question, then, would be: if you're human in every way but biology, are you in fact human?

I could see the film going that way.
 
I've been thinking everyone is after Deckard because him and Rachel were a new type of Replicant and with Tyrell dead, noone has been able to make more like them.
 
https://twitter.com/donttrythis/status/887893783341182977

Adam Savage‏Verified account @donttrythis 4h4 hours ago
The detail is INSANE. Doug Harlocker is a genius. #Welcometo2049 #BladeRunner2049 #SDCC

DFJufOJXcAAxhVU.jpg


DFJugZmW0AEuiXZ.jpg

DFJuhfRXkAA7fo6.jpg
 
I really dig where Villeneuve is coming from with this. From his ComicCon interview:

"The thing is, I was raised with (the theatrical version of Blade Runner)... Later on, I discovered what Ridley’s initial dream was and I really loved Ridley’s version, too. The key to make this movie was to be in-between. Because the first movie (the theatrical edit) is the story of a human falling in love with a designed human being and the story of the [other edit] is the story of a replicant who didn’t know he’s a replicant and slowly discovers his own identity. Those are two different stories. I felt like the key to deal with that was in the original (Philip K. Dick) novel. IN the novel, the characters are doubting about themselves; they are not sure if they are replicants or not. For time to time, they’re doing Voigt-Kampff on themselves to make sure that they’re humans. I love that idea. So I decided that the movie would be on that side, too, that Deckard in the movie is as unsure as we are about what his identity is. That, I love it, because I love mystery. That’s an interesting thing to me—not the knowing who he is or not—but the doubt [of it].”
 
Nightowl1701 said:
I really dig where Villeneuve is coming from with this. From his ComicCon interview:

"The thing is, I was raised with (the theatrical version of Blade Runner)... Later on, I discovered what Ridley’s initial dream was and I really loved Ridley’s version, too. The key to make this movie was to be in-between. Because the first movie (the theatrical edit) is the story of a human falling in love with a designed human being and the story of the [other edit] is the story of a replicant who didn’t know he’s a replicant and slowly discovers his own identity. Those are two different stories. I felt like the key to deal with that was in the original (Philip K. Dick) novel. IN the novel, the characters are doubting about themselves; they are not sure if they are replicants or not. For time to time, they’re doing Voigt-Kampff on themselves to make sure that they’re humans. I love that idea. So I decided that the movie would be on that side, too, that Deckard in the movie is as unsure as we are about what his identity is. That, I love it, because I love mystery. That’s an interesting thing to me—not the knowing who he is or not—but the doubt [of it].”
Click to expand...
That certainly fills me with confidence, both as a fan of The Final Cut and of the original novel.
 
Nightowl1701 said:
I really dig where Villeneuve is coming from with this. From his ComicCon interview:

"The thing is, I was raised with (the theatrical version of Blade Runner)... Later on, I discovered what Ridley’s initial dream was and I really loved Ridley’s version, too. The key to make this movie was to be in-between. Because the first movie (the theatrical edit) is the story of a human falling in love with a designed human being and the story of the [other edit] is the story of a replicant who didn’t know he’s a replicant and slowly discovers his own identity. Those are two different stories. I felt like the key to deal with that was in the original (Philip K. Dick) novel. IN the novel, the characters are doubting about themselves; they are not sure if they are replicants or not. For time to time, they’re doing Voigt-Kampff on themselves to make sure that they’re humans. I love that idea. So I decided that the movie would be on that side, too, that Deckard in the movie is as unsure as we are about what his identity is. That, I love it, because I love mystery. That’s an interesting thing to me—not the knowing who he is or not—but the doubt [of it].”
Click to expand...
Sounds interesting. Getting a good feeling about this movie.
 
San Diego ComicCon showed a timeline graphic charting the events between BR and BR 2049. [My comments in brackets.]


November 2019: Blade Runner Rick Deckard flees Los Angeles with a Nexus-6 replicant named Rachael.

2020: The Tyrell Corporation introduces a new replicant model, the Nexus-8S, which has extended lifespans. (Dave Bautista plays one of these Replicants in 2049.)

2022: An EMP detonation [done by a Replicant?] causes a global blackout that has massive, destructive implications all over the world. [World War Terminus, anyone?]

2023: A Replicant prohibition is put into effect. [Presumably meaning the Off-World Colonies, as they're already forbidden on Earth. All production of replicants stops.]

2025: A new company, Wallace Corp., solves the global food shortage and becomes a massive super power. [Sorry, Peter Weyland.]

2030: Replicant prohibition is repealed. [Replicants are now legally allowed to live on Earth/Colonies, and production resumes.]

2049: Life on Earth has reached its limit, and society divides between Replicant and human. [That many replicants, only 30 years later? Mr. Wallace - Leto's character? - has been a very busy beaver.]
 
Nightowl1701 said:
2020: The Tyrell Corporation introduces a new replicant model, the Nexus-8S, which has extended lifespans.
Click to expand...

8S, huh. Question: do people get a new replicant every time their contract runs out?

2022: An EMP detonation [done by a Replicant?] causes a global blackout that has massive, destructive implications all over the world. [World War Terminus, anyone?]
Click to expand...

I'm liking this. Future dystopia AND post-apocalyptic future.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top