• 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

And I love they got Olmos, even for just a few lines. :D

It may have helped that Olmos has a fair number of voice roles in his background already, so it's something he'd be receptive to doing again. He's done voice acting in projects including Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, The Magic School Bus, The Road to El Dorado, The Batman, and Beverly Hills Chihuahua (ay caramba), and has a major role in Pixar's upcoming Coco.
 
It may have helped that Olmos has a fair number of voice roles in his background already, so it's something he'd be receptive to doing again. He's done voice acting in projects including Nausicaa of the Valley of the Wind, The Magic School Bus, The Road to El Dorado, The Batman, and Beverly Hills Chihuahua (ay caramba), and has a major role in Pixar's upcoming Coco.
He considers Blade Runner one of the best films he ever worked on, so that probably helped, too.
 
Reviews are starting to appear. If possible, avoid them. Slate's review spoiled some key elements that I didn't really want to know just yet.
 
I hope you love it. I hope everyone loves it!

I really want this long-ass, beautiful, $185 million film to pay off for everyone involved. :)
 
Just two tiny little questions, as i don't want to spoil myself too much. Do we learn what Replicants really are? Biological or Machines. Will we see how they are created?
 
Do we learn what Replicants really are? Biological or Machines.
I will answer only by referring to the original film. But spoiler space anyway for the skittish.
I say biological. They are undetectable by any means other than psychological.

Will we see how they are created?
Not really, no. Expect the same kind of ambiguity that original film has in a lot of ways.
 
Yes, the Replicants were always meant to be synthetic biological humans, or at least a convincing facsimile of flesh and blood. The original movie showed that they're put together from humanlike organs (cf. James Hong as the guy who made eyes).

Indeed, the words "robot" and "android" both originally referred to beings of synthetic flesh rather than metal and circuits. The titular robota in Karel Capek's R.U.R. were pseudo-organic, and indeed that play has a lot of similarities with Blade Runner, in that it's about the created slave beings rebelling against their creators. It was the Captain Future series of pulp stories from the 1940s, created by Mort Weisinger and largely written by Edmond Hamilton, that first codified the idea that "robot" meant a mechanical-looking automaton and "android" meant a synthetic being made of simulated flesh and bone and humanlike in appearance. Though later works used "android" to mean a fully mechanical being that merely had the surface appearance of a living person, like Mudd's androids or Data. And some works used "robot" to mean that as well, for instance the humanlike robots and fembots in the '70s bionic series.
 
Indeed, the words "robot" and "android" both originally referred to beings of synthetic flesh rather than metal and circuits. The titular robota in Karel Capek's R.U.R. were pseudo-organic, and indeed that play has a lot of similarities with Blade Runner, in that it's about the created slave beings rebelling against their creators. It was the Captain Future series of pulp stories from the 1940s, created by Mort Weisinger and largely written by Edmond Hamilton, that first codified the idea that "robot" meant a mechanical-looking automaton and "android" meant a synthetic being made of simulated flesh and bone and humanlike in appearance. Though later works used "android" to mean a fully mechanical being that merely had the surface appearance of a living person, like Mudd's androids or Data. And some works used "robot" to mean that as well, for instance the humanlike robots and fembots in the '70s bionic series.
I knew that about android, but I hadn't realized that was also true for robots. I guess that means I should finally read R.U.R., huh? :p
 
Definitely better than the first. But the first bored me. And this one bored me a little less.

If you liked the first one, there's really no way you'd find any issues with this one.
 
It's a tough comparison, because Blade Runner has more going for it than just the narrative movie itself. It was ground breaking in numerous ways in film making, and created the world that this film is totally faithful to, which is no mean feat. So you have to take that into account.

And I have seen Blade Runner an uncountable number of times, I have seen this movie once, and there's a LOT to take in.

Give me 20 years, and I'll tell you if I prefer it.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top