>On March 3, 2011, it was reported that Alcon Entertainment, a production company financed by Warner Bros., was "in final discussions to secure film, television and ancillary franchise rights to produce prequels and sequels to the iconic 1982 science-fiction thriller Blade Runner."[17] It was also reported that month that Christopher Nolan was desired as director.[18]
Did we dodge a bullet or did we miss out on some A-grade memes?
Other urls found in this thread:
He's a huge fan of the original. I bet he's still angry that he didn't make the movie.
>Mr. Wallace, I'm LAPD.
>He wasn't a clone
His movies have a cold aesthetic and his characters act robotically. He'd be perfect.
It probably wouldn't have looked as nice, but the narrative would have been tighter.
Officer K?
He was bound to direct that TDKR abomination instead
blame marvel
if wasn't for their dumb capeshit wb wouldn't feel pressured to start a cinematic universe and nolan would have time enough to wait for his dark knight returns adaption
Nolan would have made it a success
I wonder which roles he would've shoved Cillian and Hardy into.
cilian can be shoved into a lot of things and he's pretty fresh each time because he has a wide range.
hardy is the one getting very repetitive.
Both
True, plus I think Cillian would've fit into the universe well enough.
Cilian would've made a GREAT Wallace. Much better than Leto, at least.
I'm glad he didn't because we got Dunkirk too
Both are kino
Thank the fucking heavens
It would have been 3 hours of awfully jarring shots and minutes upon minutes of exposition
Oh wait he did that...WITH FUCKING BATMAN
Thank Christ.
> Did we dodge a bullet
Yes.
I don't see the difference, it plays out just like a Nolan film would.
It probably wouldnt be Sup Forumscore if he directed it.
It would have made a lot of money by wouldn't have been as good
right? i had the same feeling after watching 2049. especially the ending fight scene with the water and the waves. nolan loves making practical sets like he did in Inception
Call me crazy, but Cillian would probably have been a way better Wallace than Leto was. Dude already has the creepy scientist look down.
Dodged a huge fucking bullet.
Anyone saying otherwise has literally no idea about good films.
>Would you like to see my Replicant?
damn. we could have actually had a decent blade runner sequel but instead we got absolute garbage.
damn shame indeed.
>Bad director almost directed sci-fi sequel
If they wanted a bad director so bad they should've called JJ
Also, the expositions were Nolan to the l.
can you imagine how fucking bad it would have been with his exposition?
agreed. I think the aging makeup would've looked better on him as well.
Not much different from what we got.
Haven't seen it yet. Is it really like a Nolan flick? Please no.
It's filled with expositions and thin characters.
I think the movie turned out great.
Don't know if Nolan would have made it better.
He did Interstellar and TDKR in that time both of which were weaker directed, sloppier movies than Blade Runner. If you (wrongfully) think it had too much exposition in the dialogue wait until the Nolan brothers got a hold of the script. Dunkirk is pretty amazing movie though.
Huge exaggeration . The exposition is at acceptable / desirable levels. There's no comparison to the forced exposition in Inception and Interstellar
Bladerunner Theatrical Cut bad.
>acceptable
>dumbs down it's themes considerably
wow so contrarian and egdy with your exaggerated wrong opinions. Did we fucking watch the same movie?
So now are you talking about themes or exposition?Dumbed them down from what the original blade runner? No, if anything it was even more subtle.
cillian would have been the morgue dude.
crispin glover would have been a killer wallace.
Dodged a bullet and I say that as someone who likes Nolan.
If you wanted Wallace Wonka, sure.
It could have been even better if he approached it like he did Dunkirk. But I don't think he would. There was a lot Blade Runner 2049 left to the imagination , Nolan would find a way to explain absolutely every detail, the plot and the themes
>dumbs down it is themes considerably
Sounds like something you would appreciate.
The film I've seen is waifu bait with tons of expositions and thin characters. It's an unnecessary sequel that brings nothing of worth and doesn't compare to the original.
The original Blade Runner, excluding Ford's half assed voice over everyone agrees shouldn't be there, yeah, Deckard's arc had nuance and wasn't dumbed down as K's.
"it's" stands for possession
...
>Deckard's arc had nuance and wasn't dumbed down as K's.
>The film I've seen is waifu bait with tons of expositions and thin characters
You're fucking delusional and trying to apperar contrarian/edgy . You also can't tell the difference between plot and themes. BR 2049 occasionally reminded you of the plot / "mystery" trough flashbacks. Never told you what to think about any of it, that's why people are still arguing bout Joi or Luv, or even K what conclusions did he come to on that bridge. Blade Runner barely even had a plot..
That's not how the English language works, Jamal.
Hardy would've been Sapper
The real question is would Nolan have kept Luv a woman?
In that case, thanks for correcting me, but can't it be used in the context of it being the film?
>never told you what to think about any of it
Horseshit, the flashbacks dumbed down K's plot hard and basically ruined any little subtlety it had. And no, I'm not trying to be hip and dislike it, just because the majority of the people like it, I sincerely thought it was disappointing and unneeded.
>Horseshit, the flashbacks dumbed down K's plot hard and basically ruined any little subtlety it had
It didn't. All the debate about that scene shows it's not obvious at all. The movie tells you he came to a conclusion about what his right cause worth dying for is. Never tells you how he got there or what was going trough his mind in the last moments.
Same with Joi and Luv. All open to interpretation.
No. Here's a DUMBED DOWN guide: its-not-its.info
Tomas Lemarquis was perfect as the creepy morgue dude though.
we dodged a bullet
but the film wasnt the bullet
it would have been the nolan fandom
Thanks, lad.
It ruined it for me and that's all that matters. Those flashbacks weren't needed and they did spoil everything K's arc was about, but it's still a competent made film and I wouldn't call it bad, just disappointing considering Ville's previous work.
>Those flashbacks weren't needed and they did spoil everything K's arc was about
But they fucking don't FFS.
As I've already said in the previous post, those expositions ruined the overall experience for me and that's all that matters. BR2049 also didn't have the cult classic "tears in the rain" scene, nor a character as interesting as Roy's was. Luv didn't have that screen presence and I couldn't have cared less about her, while Wallace reminded me of Luthor from BvS and that commieesque rebel leader was yuck. The world didn't feel as much organic as it was the case with it's predecessor, though it does have a reason for it, so it gets a pass there.
>As I've already said in the previous post, those expositions ruined the overall experience for me and that's all that matters.
But you're not saying that, you're saying the themes of the movie are spelled out for you which is wrong. The flashbacks only remind you of the plot on a very superficial level, I expect them to be removed from the director cut.
>BR2049 also didn't have the cult classic "tears in the rain" scene
It did have other great scenes. Rachel finding out her memories are fake is the best scene in blade runner anyway.
>nor a character as interesting as Roy's was
Roy had two-three good scenes in the original, this was like the main character was Roy instead of uninsteresting as Deckard
>OHHHHH! If you want to be possessive it's just "EYE-TEE-ESS"
>But if you want to use a contraction its"eye-tee-apostrophe-ess"
Thanks Strong bad.
Good, loved everything of this one.
> Did we dodge a bullet
Fuck yes.
>Nolan would find a way to explain absolutely every detail, the plot and the themes
Joi would probably be saved by the power of universal love or something.
>Joi would probably be saved by the power of universal love or something.
kek, but this is not actually on Nolan. He didn't write that part in. He took a script which was original written for Spielberg and "nolanized it". The love transcends space and gravity part was a core part of that script. Not his fault.
>Did we dodge a bullet
We dodged a bullet because what we got was infinitely superior to any movie released in the past few years
The movie certainlly whould be more entertaining. I whant to watch it now.
>The flashbacks only remind you of the plot on a very superficial level, I expect them to be removed from the director cut
They were more than superficial. They told you K's dilemmas and how he wished he was a real human with a soul, instead of being just another replicant.
>It did have other great scenes. Rachel finding out her memories are fake is the best scene in blade runner anyway.
My favorite scene in the new film was the shootout between K and Deckard in the club, really liked the lightning there, also the intro scene with Batista was quite good. I'd take the scene in which Roy asks his maker to prolong his life over the Rachel one any day.
>Roy had two-three good scenes in the original, this was like the main character was Roy instead of uninsteresting as Deckard
I found Roy's fear of death quite appealing and interesting, he didn't have much screen time, but it was more than enough to flesh him out. Can't say the same for Luv.
Also, Ford's performance was really good and he managed to subtly convey Deckard regaining his humanity.
It IS his fault for not correcting it.
There's no movie without that part.
that's the preferable alternative to wannabe 2001
I think we dodged a bullet desu. Nolan needed to do Dunkirk because he was really failing at the sci-fi and action stuff. He needed to reset and get back to doing simple films. If he got to do BR it would have probably been a bloated mess with lots of awkward meme scenes and pacing issues.
>They told you K's dilemmas and how he wished he was a real human with a soul, instead of being just another replicant.
What? No flashback told you this.
>and he managed to subtly convey Deckard regaining his humanity.
Deckard was always human tho,
It was a popular movie that got people interested in space exploration, pushing boundaries, it had that kind of "pioneer" message I think it's great.
These superhero blockbusters they're making have no message.
>What? No flashback told you this.
Didn't the rebel leader tell K how each of them wanted to be Deckard's child and how they all broke down realizing it?
It feels like poor man's 2001 and didn't Gravity do the same, only better?
>Didn't the rebel leader tell K how each of them wanted to be Deckard's child and how they all broke down realizing it?
That's not a flashback, but no...that's not what happened . Like at all.
> didn't Gravity do the same, only better?
I don't think Gravity had that message though, about being explorers and pioneers.
It was about this woman trying to get over a tragedy and George Clooney quipping. Really shallow movie and no positive message.
It wasn't a flashback, but went hand in hand with it.
>that's no what happened . Like at all.
Maybe not verbatim, but wasn't something along those lines implied?
I meant getting people into sci-fi.
>Maybe not verbatim, but wasn't something along those lines implied?
Not really no. You find out he wants to be special and have a soul like way early in the movie.
My bad, then.
he woulda killed it, and i woulda gave his bane role to bardem even though hardy killed it too
Wouldn't be much worse. Villenueve is only slightly better than Nolan, so either way, it's a mediocre flick. Unless your fedora is practically screwed on to your head.
It would've been worse, but it would've also sold.