Am I the only one who thought the preview for this looked awful?

Am I the only one who thought the preview for this looked awful?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=n5x3J_cHqe8
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

this is Sup Forums. everything looks awful to us.

>released in 2045
>its only 2016

Yes, because this board is populated with 99% contrarians who can't be fucked to show interest in anything at all.

>Am I the only one...
Yeah dude, you're a special snowflake.
Nobody else could ever possibly share the same opinion as you.

>original movie set in 2019
>release sequel in 2017 because Harrison Ford

Nah, it's not being contrarian. It just didn't seem to have the same vibes and visual style as the original, and feels almost like a The Force Awakens-tier cash grab, complete with the Harrison Ford cameo in the trailer

>Villeneuve Directing
>Same lead writer as the original
>Roger Fucking Deakins shooting it
>Identical visual style to original
>Harrison reprising role he actually gives a shit about

Why can't you ever just be happy?

Bubblegum Crisis 2040

I thought it looked very meh. I think it is going to shit on the original in the same way that Prometheus shit on the Alien franchise.

Yea. well ryan gosling made me LOL, but it looked good so far.

>>Identical visual style to original

Kek no

I don't know why they had to bring back Ford and thus retcon him being an android out. That was probably the most interesting part of the original.

get fucked replicantfag

Deckard being alive is proof enough that this film is completely missing the point of the original

But hey, gotta strike while the 80s sci-fi nostalgia iron is still hot I guess

>That was probably the most interesting part of the original.
I don't know how old you are, but that was some bullshit that was made up in the Internet era. I fucking hate that theory and love that Deckard appearing as an old man in 2049 as awesome. It BTFO this theory.

Inb4 they made his model of replicant able to age. KEK no.

He was clearly a replicant in the director's cut.

Visual style is still up in the air. You only really got to see grounded viewpoints for a few seconds. We have no idea how the skyline will look for example.

Basically it's up in the air still.

>Ryan Gosling
I'm not hopeful.

>Same lead writer as the original

Philip K. Dick is back from the dead now?

Are you retarded? In the original cut there's little indication that he's a replicant, but in the director's cut it's pretty clear. Otherwise the unicorn scenes are there randomly.

He just does seem wrong for this, doesn't he? I cringed in the teaser when they showed him with his "fresh from the tennis match" haircut.

How is it something made up in the internet era? The unicorn dream and subsequent unicorn origami is clearly meant to leave it ambiguous.

Hampton Fancher

Yes, like I said, this is some bullshit that even Ridley Scott jumped on after the fact. All through the '80s and '90s, it was never a possibility that Deckard was a replicant. The "Deckard is a replicant" meme is some post-revisionist bandwagon bullshit.

Oh so you mean the person who truncated and made the story of Blade Runner a worse one than Do Androids of Electric Sheep. This is a point in this sequel's favor how exactly?

I feel the same way bro.

Scott has stated several times that he wrote Deckard as a replicant, but here we are.

I can only hope he's some new kind of replicant that can age, or else the symbolism with the unicorn dream just becomes nonsensical bullshit. If he's human then why even have Gaff place the origami unicorn just a day or two after Deckard dreamed of a unicorn? What, he just wanted Deckard to know he's been practicing his paper crafts?

Man how can you be this thick. Aside from several hints in the dialogue that I'm too lazy to paste here, the biggest clue is his eyes.

There is a huge focus on the eyes of replicants and other artificial life forms. Not just that they're involved in the testing process Deckard and other Blade Runners use, but the film has many shots where the pupils of a replicant reflect an orange color. It happens to Rachel, the owl in Tyrell's lobby, and most importantly, to Deckard. It's not a batshit insane theory, the film implies it heavily.

Huh? How do you figure? Scott presumably shot all the unicorn scenes and intended to leave them in from the beginning. It's not like he went and did reshoots in 1992 when they released his cut.

Thanks for your opinion, faggot. Tell someone who cares. A smart person could interview a replicant and know after so long they are a replicant. You don't need a fucking machine to tell you.

Yeah well PKD made it clear in the original story that he's definitely a human, with a wife and regular medical check-ups, the ability to use the empathy box, etc.

It's not a theory. Ridley Scott has openly stated on camera that Deckard is a replicant.

Final Cut is the only version.

This.

It would've been much better if they didn't throw Harrison Ford in it and the flick was just a new self-discovery story told through Ryan Gosling's experiences only. Maybe some mentions of Deckard's disappearance in some old case files and Gosling discovering about Deckard's replicant identity indirectly because of it - but actually throwing in Deckard so that they have some kind of team-up/rivalry dynamic? Big fuck up. Ford is getting old and senile and I have a feeling he'll end up fucking over the film big-time.

Execs just gotta throw in the safe and forced nostalgia bits.

In the book he's clearly a human, but you'll note that the book isn't at all like the movie.

So you admit he changed it a decade later, after everyone's bullshit theories influenced him.

That is the opposite of what I'm saying.

>It's not a theory. Ridley Scott has openly stated on camera that Deckard is a replicant.
Decades later after he made new cuts of the film and after he let pleb Internet theories influence him.

I honestly think that'd be worse if they wrote away him being alive as a replicant. There's no way to do a Blade Runner sequel and keep Deckard alive without it being stupid.

But Hollywood's gonna keep wheeling Ford out in front of a camera as long as it's a sure-fire draw for asses in seats, because god forbid they cast young people in films who are actually good actors and not the producer's godson

No, it's not. You are just retarded.

Not getting a good vibe, user. Then again I just started drinking again so that also could factor in but yeah not into the casting choice.

You are so dumb it's a wonder you've managed to survive in the world for so long. If he let pre-internet internet theories influence him, why exactly did he shoot all the unicorn scenes way back in 1982?

I love how they made it less dark and gritty. I'm loving the bright clean look of everything. All the furniture and settings look so clean and brand new. Gives cyberpunk a more optimistic luxurious feeling it was lacking. Low tech, high life. That's how I like my cyberpunk.

it's not going to be special like the original, but i'm sure it'll be watchable.

Kek, why are you so triggered about this? All you keep saying is
>muh ancient bbs internet theories ruined blade runner u shitz!!
And people are providing proof that this isn't actually the case.

And let's be honest, in lieu of all that, Blade Runner's story just isn't as good without Deckard himself being a replicant. It almost elevates the film beyond its source material by skillfully executing PKD's obsession with a loss of identity/self-paranoia as a central theme

The trailer looked good, but I've seen trailers that look good before. Copying an aesthetic is easy compared to writing a worthy follow up to a classic.

A friendly reminder this is three years away

youtube.com/watch?v=n5x3J_cHqe8

>elevates its material beyond its source material

bullshit, the novel is a masterpiece and the point is the human characters worship empathy and look down on the androids inability to feel it but the humans don't really show it to one another either. Deckard being a human is integral to the story for his coming to understand this and feel it for even the androids.

>I'm loving the bright clean look of everything

wtf are you talking about? It doesn't look clean at all... it looks like modern day China with fucking yellow air polluted cities that you can't see in front after 10 feet.

First movie is pretentious trash that people cling on to because:
>"lol he was a replicant? really made me think..."

>three years away
dude, that's China now.

You're a fucking moron.

Is that mansion in the desert a location from the original?

They had smog, skyscrapers and television screens in 1982 too.

*three years away if America didn't outsource all of their Industry to Chinese

So instead of Japanese overlords in the original, now it's korean overlords? Is that what the visuals are telling me in this teaser?

Everything but Harrison Ford looked good.

He looks like they woke him up at 5am, handed him the blaster, and said the words "Blade Runner" before dragging him onto the set.

I hope Edward James Olmos shows up again as Gaff.

In the actual year 2049, they will still be making Blade Runner, Star Wars, Ghostbusters, Harry Potter, etc etc movies

how does this make you feel?

me: very bad

nope DADOES>Blade Runner

>comparing the two
You are indeed a moron.

okay then how about this one

We'll hit a saturation point eventually. This can't keep going for another 30 years.

Thanks for admitting they are not the same thing, you monkey.

You are like a little baby.

comparing a movie to the book that movie is based upon, crazy I know. But you see the movie was filled with sparkly for plebs like yourself who never outgrew having keys jingled over their head to make them laugh and clap their hands, whereas the book was filled with thought provoking philosophical questions on the human condition that were omitted, but you enjoy muh teardrops in the rain, so profound. BTW that was never even in the screenplay, it was adlibbed so having the screenwriter back won't get you anything of that sort.

It happened with westerns. It's already happening with the Marvel movie.

>a phase will last forever
>said every retard caught up in the phase

Except the book does not factor into this at all. When he said they brought back one of the 2 main writers from the original, we were clearly talking about the film.

So what the fuck relevance does the book have on that comment? Hampton Fancher was one of the original writers of the original script. He's back.

I like how you conveniently omitted my use of the word "almost". A+ reading comprehension there.

As for the rest of your post, perhaps take a look at pic related. It's a written response to the trailer for the original Blade Runner, written by none other than Horselover Fat himself.

Here's the highlight since apparently your reading's not so good
>Nothing that we have done, individually or collectively, matches BLADE RUNNER. [ ... ] My life and creative work are justified and completed by BLADE RUNNER.

Please, shitpost elsewhere.

So is Vangelis doing the OST?

because it's the story of Rick Deckard a bounty hunter who uses empathy to track down rogue androids in a post apocalyptic noir future. Philip K Duick wrote that story not Fancher, so who gives a shit that hack who just copypasted a few bits added in some parts that made it worse and let the actors adlib the memorable lines is back or not.

He has better things to do

Which explains why no one is making westerns any more.

who cares what PKD wrote? the movie was never loyal to the book.

So? He also said he received messages from space via an "information rich pink beam"

and that's why the movie is a bastardization so instead of getting a faithful adaptation we're getting the Disney direct to DVD sequel treatment for the adaptation. This is the Hunchback of Notre Dame 2 of sci fi.

I don't want to see all of Harrison Fords cool characters turn into old men.

What if replicant Deckard is actually dead and not only had his memories based off of Gaf, but the real human Deckard, along with his physical appearance? And the real Deckard has now had his memories transplanted into this new replicant, Ryan Gosling's character (hence him playing with the piano in the teaser?)

Sounds fucking retarded but it's the only answer I can come up with to excuse this shit.

...that would be pretty cool actually! Longshot of them handling it that way, though.

So you ardently defend his writing, but also think he's full of shit? Whatever floats your boat m8

>Android character is just a copy of his creator
Wow, how original

Yeah I can enjoy someone's artistic work without having to agree with or care about their opinions. Like how I can enjoy The Lion The Witch and The Wardobe but not believe in Jesus like C.S. Lewis did.

Pretty much sums this shit up. Its all trash.

no

blade runner's visual atmosphere was it's main appeal
from the trailer it looks like they could have done a much better job of trying to match it but deakins is shooting it so idk

also should have gotten fucking vangelis back the soundtrack was the second best part

isn't Vangelis dead?

close enough

>>Harrison reprising role he actually gives a shit about
Kinda ruins the ambiguity surrounding the original though.

Did it ruin the ambiguity of Jurassic Park 2 when Jeff Goldblum's character came back and you realized that maybe he ISN'T secretly a dinosaur afterall?

I've only watched the first Jurassic Park.

I thought there was something about you, a clearness in your eyes, the eyes of someone who's never seen the Jurassic Park sequels. but Spoiler, in JP2 Jeff Goldblum turns out is a human dinosaur hybrid that was an early experiment to patch the holes in the DNA they found in that amber and he starts to develop super strength and agility. It's terrible, I don't recommend you watch it but now if someone ever brings it up in conversation you can say you know what it's about.

Anything much known about this movie? Blade Runner is my favorite movie so I have pretty much impossibly high expectations going into this.