>Denis Villeneuve noted that he's fully aware of the

File: 2ed4cc33564a.jpg (44KB, 360x570px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 360x570px

>>83785084
Based Villeneuve

>>83785084
>Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
was the 2017 necessary

>>83785084
It's always risky making a sequel or a reboot of something that has become a cult classic.

Having Ford in there definitely helps.

The cynical side of me says this is just a cash grab though.

>>83785084
>art
>hollywood flicks and cash cows
>Blade Runner 2049 (2017)
Jesus Christ.

>>83785870
>Having Ford in there definitely helps.
That's what makes me think it is just a cash grab. Just like the meme wars: bring back nostalgia characters for no reason except to sell tickets. I really don't see what was so special about Ford's character that he would pop up again in another crazy storyline.

>>83786046
>really don't see what was so special about Ford's character that he would pop up again in another crazy storyline.
he was a replicant

>>83785930

If you're implying that Blade Runner is some kind of cash cow studios are putting all their eggs into, you're delusional. The original movie was a financial flop and the devoted fanbase it has built since is not large enough to constitute it breaking any box office records. Furthermore, sci-fi has been a relatively dead film genre since the late 80s. It has zero appeal to minorities and women.

The film has its audience - the director knows it and obviously the producers that greenlighted it also know it - and I doubt they'll abandon any conviction just to try and make fucking Blade Runner a tentpole blockbuster watershed explosion of money and merchandising.

>>83786095
That's not true anon, at least not entirely. The audience wasn't suppose to know if he was or wasn't a replicant; it was left open ended. No doubt the new age of "no subtlety" in movies and film will make it canon, but that doesn't mean he should be in this movie. They could have left that untouched and made a completely new story in the same universe. But obviously they are afraid not having Ford will result in a weaker box office.

>>83786574
This. I don't see why Gosling couldn't carry the film alone, I mean he is more than capable.

So it probably is just a cash grab. It's one of many franchises being rebooted for those sweet nostalgia gibs.

>>83785084
is he floating?

>>83785084
That posters looks like Mad Max, what the fuck?

The script for Arrival was pretty mediocre yet Villeneuve made it pretty decent.

Ford called this the best script he read in a while though I don't know if that means much.

Right now its look a bit too glossy though, the appeal of the old Blade Runner is that retro futuristic smokey look.

>>83786103
It's not that it's this huge franchise cash cow, but it is still a guaranteed market. Instead of making an original script, they choose the parasite tactic; leaching off of past success. At least this way they know they will make their money back, and hopefully branch out to a larger audience for more sequels down the road.

>>83786851
Mad Max + Back to the Future

or it could just be a new Back to the Future movie, where Marty's kid find's his dad's old car, goes to the Future to find the Earth in that state.

>>83786103
The trailer clearly disagrees with your point, it looks very generic, Deakins brought his trademark cinamemetography that the fanboys will as usual be impressed with, Goose can't act or entertain to save his life, Ford is just phoning it in at this point, and the script will likely be some pseudo-intellectual normie-appeasing drivel like Arrival was. I agree it won't be as soulless as a Disney blockbuster, but overall it's poised to be a very average summer movie and I don't expect much from it. Villaneuve simply doesn't have much talent.

>>83787205
Lol, spotted the retard

>>83786878
Maybe you know that's because they used to shoot on film brush.