Blade Runner 2

[Christopher]

It's an interesting commentary on the film audience that it's so easy to see Batty as just a villain who had a moment of weakness. That interpretation is not consistent with an unbiased viewing.

If the film had been shot from the perspective of the replicants instead of Deckard, then it's a story of a cruel government hunting down escaped slaves like animals. The narration implies that we shouldn't take a broader perspective, we need to watch the film good and biased. Accept the cinematic manipulation and the establishment line.

Exactly my reaction. The narration heavy-handedly pushed us to interpret the ending in a particular way. Once I saw the film without the narration and was free to decide for myself, I understood the ending in an entirely different way, a way that had far more meaning and impact.

 

[Tosk]

I think we're talking past one another. The voice-over was always intended to be part of the film; there are versions of it in the script from the beginning. The final version of the narration, written, I believe, by Roland Kibbee, may not be what Fancher or Peoples wrote, but it's consistent with their vision.

My apologies, I made my point opaque...I meant it was added from the perpective of what Jirin was saying...

I was talking about the narration, trying to suggest the film is morally straightforward and the replicants are just evil and need to be killed. It's like whoever added that didn't even watch the rest of the film.

So not so much the narration as noir device, but in terms of the goal of the VO dialogue itself it was added late by a new writer, trying to put a spin on the events as seen. So the idea of having narration wasn't added, but the content itself was.

 

[Deckerd]

If the film had been shot from the perspective of the replicants instead of Deckard, then it's a story of a cruel government hunting down escaped slaves like animals. The narration implies that we shouldn't take a broader perspective, we need to watch the film good and biased. Accept the cinematic manipulation and the establishment line.

Then surely that's an argument for having the narration rather than not? It clearly diverts everyone to distraction talking about it so many years after the event. Ridley Scott is not so good on dialogue. The reason he gets away with it in BR is because it's so sparse and a lot of it is replayed with different emphasis as the detective detects. He claims he didn't like the narration and re-released the film without it but in my very cynical opinion it was the first of many moneyspinners. He knew he'd created a cinematic classic and perhaps knowingly, perhaps not so much, started a seemingly endless argument by cutting the narration.

Really you should all think of them as two different films.

 

[davejames]

Pretty cool to hear this is being moved up to October 2017 and a more high profile time of year, versus the middle of freakin January. Makes me think the studio is a lot more confident in the movie (although I'm sure having both Ryan Gosling and a post-TFA Harrison Ford in starring roles was a big factor too).

http://www.comingsoon.net/movies/ne...-sequel-release-date-moves-up-to-october-2017

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Speak for yourself. For me, the narration made the difference between disliking the movie and liking it. Not just because it distorted the meaning of the film, but because it was just so terrible and badly delivered.

Far as I'm concerned, the film is better without the narration simply because Harrison Ford said so.

Never mind what Ridley Scott thinks. Ford's word is definitive.

 

[davejames]

Yeah I just watched the theatrical version again for the first time in forever, and while I didn't find the narration itself isn't to be all that bad (save the incredibly clunky last bit after Batty dies), what it does do is make the movie as a whole feel a lot more dull and plodding, as it just sucks out all the mystery and wonder that makes the story work in the first place. And it turns the movie from an incredible work of art into just some glum scifi detective movie.

I imagine it would be the same kind of thing if you stuck a bunch of narration in 2001.

 

[sojourner]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[TRON JA307020]

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I just saw the preview. Gosling can't hold a candle to Fords original Blade Runner on screen anyway. Hopefully Ford will be in it a whole lot more than is rumored and they wont do the super obvious thing of killing his character off by the end of the film.

 

[Christopher]

Hopefully Ford will be in it a whole lot more than is rumored and they wont do the super obvious thing of killing his character off by the end of the film.

That depends. Will the bad guy turn out to be his son...?

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The original looked so much better, they should get the same guy to do the new movie. Oh, wait.

Kind of funny starting the trailer with the much maligned voiceover narration. Now that I think about it, I've never watched the later cut without them, I should do that someday.

 

[TRON JA307020]

The original looked so much better, they should get the same guy to do the new movie. Oh, wait.

Kind of funny starting the trailer with the much maligned voiceover narration. Now that I think about it, I've never watched the later cut without them, I should do that someday.

Ridley Scott only executive produced this one so he didn't have a whole lot of input. The preview does seem to show a different atmosphere to the original unfortunately.

 

[Christopher]

The preview does seem to show a different atmosphere to the original unfortunately.

Why is that unfortunate? It's three decades later in-story as well as in reality, so it would make sense that the world has changed in the interim. And just slavishly copying the tone of the original would be pointless. This won't be any good if it's just an imitation; it needs to add something new, something that complements and adds to the original.

 

[Tosk]

Kind of funny starting the trailer with the much maligned voiceover narration.

That dialogue is not from the narration. It's from when Deckard was talking to Rachael.

 

[JD]

I was hoping for something a bit more informative. I did find this intriguing, but I would have liked to have gotten a bit more of an idea of what the actual story is. This is just the first trailer, so hopefully we can get better ones later.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

That dialogue is not from the narration. It's from when Deckard was talking to Rachael.

I knew it wasn't taken from the original narration but I didn't catch that it was from Deckard talking to Rachel. It was just that I thought it came across like the narration present in the original theatrical version. (if that makes any sense )

Why is that unfortunate? It's three decades later in-story as well as in reality, so it would make sense that the world has changed in the interim. And just slavishly copying the tone of the original would be pointless. This won't be any good if it's just an imitation; it needs to add something new, something that complements and adds to the original.

It didn't seem very interesting from what was in the trailer though we got both teal scenes AND orange scenes. Granted it's a brief peek so I'm not writing it off just yet.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I knew it wasn't taken from the original narration but I didn't catch that it was from Deckard talking to Rachel. I was just that thought it came across like the narration present in the original theatrical version. (if that makes any sense )

It does, at least to me.

Kind of funny starting the trailer with the much maligned voiceover narration. Now that I think about it, I've never watched the later cut without them, I should do that someday.

Personally, I find the narration-free cuts -- the so-called Director's Cut (which isn't) and the Final Cut (which is a director's cut) -- naked without the narration. They're missing an essential part of their film-noir-ness, imho.

 

[UssGlenn]

Personally, I find the narration-free cuts -- the so-called Director's Cut (which isn't) and the Final Cut (which is a director's cut) -- naked without the narration. They're missing an essential part of their film-noir-ness, imho.

I deliberately avoided watching Blade Runner until I could watch the Final Cut. That's the only version I've seen, I've never seen any version with the voice-over.

 

[Christopher]

Personally, I find the narration-free cuts -- the so-called Director's Cut (which isn't) and the Final Cut (which is a director's cut) -- naked without the narration. They're missing an essential part of their film-noir-ness, imho.

I hated the movie when I saw it with the narration. I didn't like it until I saw it without. Partly because Harrison Ford is a really, really bad voiceover actor, and partly because the narration twisted and dumbed down the meaning of the ending to the point that I didn't understand what the ending was really about until I saw it narration-free.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I've watched the teaser about 30 times by now. Still get goose bumps.

 

[2takesfrakes]

Sean Young favours Queen Elizabeth, now that she's in her Golden Years, but even so, if Rachel isn't in Blade Runner2, then there's going to be an empty seat in the cinema. Ford's being in it doesn't mean anything to me, without her as co-star.