Blade Runner 2049

>>82586490
we won't know until 2049, when it comes out

>>82586490
They're trying to sell it to normies. It's gonna be complete shit.
Bog standard lowest-common-denominator, derivative tripe.
It'll look pretty though.

>Blade Runner is set in 2019
>Released 1982
>Blade Runner 2049 is set in 2049
>Will be released 2017
This means Harrison Ford will look 5 years older than he should
How does this support/disprove the Deckard is a Replicant theory?

It'll have good visuals but Ryan Gosling didn't convince me in the role and Harrison Ford doesn't give a shit about anything anymore. We can only hope.

Honestly I'd prefer it they just used the same creative talent for a new movie and not a completely unnecessary sequel.

>>82586490
I want to see it just for that qt giant hologram.

>>82586490
it sounds like they're re-using the kino score, i hope they don't tarnish it with a shitty film

>>82586490
the futuristic cities aesthetics looks like they just had leftover shots from ghost in the shell that they sold in bulk to this production

>>82586490
Villenueve hasn't made a bad film. Except I thought Arrival was a little bland and aimless.

>>82587885

This.

Looks nothing like the original BR movie.

It looks like weak shit that belongs in a music video.

>>82587931

Just like Nolan he has an eye for cinematography but he essentially overproduces weak scripts into "solid" products.

>>82586490
>unnecessary sequel to a great movie that nobody wanted or asked for
>starring Meme Man and the original star who has long since stopped giving a shit about acting

it's going to be a real piece of shit

File: 1494221855413.jpg (362KB, 1382x2048px) Image search: [Google]

362KB, 1382x2048px

>Ford: I had your job once, I was good at it. And I was really - I was alive.
>Driver: you... drove?
>Ford: no i was the "Blade Runner™"
>Driver: yea, but now, I'm "Blade Runner 2049™"
fucking dropped

File: Armas-Knock-Keanu-Reeves-Roth_841427840_58253425_1536x1024.jpg (129KB, 1536x1024px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 1536x1024px

I will automatically like it to balance the contrarian equation.

>>82586490

The real question is, will it still hold up thirty years from now? And will people still be discussing and debating the message and implications of the plot? That's the thing that makes Blade Runner so special.

I don't think so. Dragging back the ancient Harrison gives me doubts - but I trust Villeneuve. He has yet to make a bad film. So even if it's not memorable or doesn't live up to the legacy of the original film, it will be very watchable and pretty to look at.

>>82588121
took me a second to notice, kek.

Ridley Scott hasn't made a good movie since Alien.

So I guess shit.

>>82587733
Well it supports it because he is a replicant. However to the contrary it disproves it because he is not

I like you all had my doubts but now I think it shall be kino.

So in the original Blade Runner we found out that Duncan was a replicate. But now Declan is really old so how could he be a replitile? Also does this mean Ryan Gobbling be a reproducobot?

>>82586490
A sequel to a movie that didn't need a sequel.
Wouldn't have minded if they went with their own thing this time, and I wouldn't have minded the over bloated action scenes if that were the case. Something about the trailer just doesn't sit right with me, maybe it's the heavy handed dialogue, and nice visuals contrasting with the big explosions, a running old man, and the generic hype music.
Also I'm sick of seeing old Harrison Ford in movies now, he acting as a part time job, and generally doesn't want to be there.

>>82586490
It's very visually interesting but literally WHAT the fuck is even happening in the movie?

Not even the original was that good but people liked it for the atmosphere, this will suck ass because it'll revolve around some plot noone gives a fuck about and be a CGI fest. The soundtrack will probably be the only good thing about it.

File: Jp2stZ4.jpg (42KB, 564x564px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 564x564px

>>82586490
will watch it for my waifu regardless

>>82589091

It will be nice low contrast flat color graded wide shot set pieces done in postproduction with base Goose overlaid looking pensive.

>>82586490
It will be good, but not close to as good as the first. The first was lightening in a bottle.

>>82589137
I'm weirdly ok with that as long as it doesn't end up being too boring.

>>82586490
Looks like it is going to shit all over the legacy of the original.

>watching trailer
>member giant ads
>member ATARI
>member fly cars
>member giant pyramid arcologies
>member Harrison Ford
>member that blade runner gun

etc...

also it looks uncomfortably similar to the recent GitS movie aesthetic. those sets and shots are practically interchangable

>>82587868
Unless that Vangelis cover only appears in the trailer. I think they are gonna have some bland, by-the-numbers score, just like the new Ghost in the Shell. Fuck, what a forgettable OST in that movie.

>>82589091
>It's very visually interesting but literally WHAT the fuck is even happening in the movie?

Doesn't that speak to the quality of the trailer though? That it captures attention/interest without actually spoiling anything?

....Keep in mind it has nothing to do with the quality of the movie itself, though.

Who keeps putting Jared Leto in movies, he's not at all enjoyable to watch.

>>82589114
>Not even the original was that good but people liked it for the atmosphere
Speak for yourself, faggot.

I just don't have high hopes and that makes me sad, now and in the future.

>>82589267
I get what you're saying but it was so jarring just hearing random pieces of dialogue that didn't mean anything. They could have at least laid out what he was trying to accomplish.

>>82589276
Really? He's a bit of a try hard but I think he's interesting to watch.

>>82589310
>>82589276
he always seems to present a smarmy persona, which works if you build his character around it but otherwise he just seems like he's too self absolved.

Ridley Scott agreed with Harrison Ford in making Blade Runner that Deckard was a human. Years later, after faggot theories on the Internet, Scott changes his mind and says Deckard was probably a replicant. Now in this film, Deckard has aged, something no replicant made at that time can do. He is obviously human, and the film will reveal that. Will Scott be a humungo-faggot and change his mind again, even though he didn't direct this one?

>Blade Runner 2049

There's 2048 Blader Runner movies?

>>82589399
Or Deckard or has found some way to prolong his life and that turns out to be the main plot device, by making replicants closer to human.

>>82589482
Not gonna happen. If the genius Tyrell couldn't do it with his team of genius scientists and doctors, there is no way Deckard can.

>>82589530
>>82589399
Do you guys even now what Replicants are?

>>82589572
Do you know what a turbofag is? Hint: It's you!