|
|
Post by Warmonger on Dec 19, 2016 14:17:51 GMT -5
Not comic book related, but I know we have tons of sci-fi fans here.
The original is probably my favorite movie of all-time. I was highly skeptical of a sequel, but now I'm pretty damn excited.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 19, 2016 14:28:44 GMT -5
It looks interesting, though I'm still not sure a sequel was needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pharozonk on Dec 19, 2016 14:46:04 GMT -5
It looks interesting, though I'm still not sure a sequel was needed. I love Ryan Gosling so this movie has that going for it. I do wonder if this film will ruin some of the ambiguity of the ending of the original film, which is part of what made it so good.  |
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,395 
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 19, 2016 14:56:11 GMT -5
It looks interesting, though I'm still not sure a sequel was needed. Neither am I, but still... Denis Villeneuve! |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 19, 2016 15:13:39 GMT -5
It looks interesting, though I'm still not sure a sequel was needed. I love Ryan Gosling so this movie has that going for it. I do wonder if this film will ruin some of the ambiguity of the ending of the original film, which is part of what made it so good. He is a pretty great actor, and it definitely seems to take a bit of the mystery out of it with that line about, "I used to do what you did." |
|
|
|
Post by brutalis on Dec 20, 2016 8:03:45 GMT -5
Talk about a fairly ambiguous and bland teaser trailer? It does nothing to grab you. It relies upon name recognition and the presumption that you are either familiar with or saw and liked the original. Not really enough there to say to people this is a movie to have you come see me!
|
|
Roquefort Raider
CCF Mod Squad
Modus omnibus in rebus
Posts: 16,395
Member is Online
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Dec 20, 2016 15:40:04 GMT -5
Talk about a fairly ambiguous and bland teaser trailer? It does nothing to grab you. It relies upon name recognition and the presumption that you are either familiar with or saw and liked the original. Not really enough there to say to people this is a movie to have you come see me! I thought the Ozymandias reference was awesome, myself! |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 20, 2016 15:43:42 GMT -5
There was absolutely nothing there to make me want to see a sequel that I don't think is remotely necessary.
And I have no interest in the perpetuation of the ridiculous "Deckard is a replicant" garbage.
|
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 21, 2016 10:49:48 GMT -5
There was absolutely nothing there to make me want to see a sequel that I don't think is remotely necessary. And I have no interest in the perpetuation of the ridiculous "Deckard is a replicant" garbage. i'm not a fan of it myself, though I didn't mind the ambiguity of the original cut because I think it spoke to the journey that Dick was writing about in the first place; as man becomes more and more dehumanized while androids become more and more human, what's the difference between the two? And if he's flat out a replicant you just don't get that journey at all. |
|
Confessor
CCF Mod Squad
Not Bucky O'Hare!
Posts: 9,545
|
Post by Confessor on Dec 22, 2016 1:12:32 GMT -5
There was absolutely nothing there to make me want to see a sequel that I don't think is remotely necessary. And I have no interest in the perpetuation of the ridiculous "Deckard is a replicant" garbage. I agree that this is a completely unnecessary sequel to a film that I personally consider to be some kind of a masterpiece. That's teaser looks terrible too and, worse, says to me that this is the first step in the setting up of a Blade Runner franchise. A baton handing over movie perhaps, a la The Force Awakens. As for Deckard being a replicant, I like it being ambiguous (which is something that this new film promises to put an end to one way or another). But I'm curious as to why you consider the idea that Deckard is a replicant to be "garbage", Slam. Depending on which version of the film you're watching, the presence of the origami unicorn at the end and the briefly glowing replicant eyes that the character has in one particular scene, pretty much scream that he's a replicant. Plus, Ridley Scott has gone on record saying that, yes, as far as he's concerned, Deckard is a replicant. Harrison Ford has also said that Ridley told him the same thing about the character on the film set (although Ford disagreed). Like I say, I prefer it to be left up to the viewer to decide, but it's clear that the character very well could be an android. But regardless of whether you believe he is or not, this isn't some far out theory, thought up by people who are unconnected to the film, so I wonder why you deem it "garbage"? |
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Dec 22, 2016 19:49:48 GMT -5
There was absolutely nothing there to make me want to see a sequel that I don't think is remotely necessary. And I have no interest in the perpetuation of the ridiculous "Deckard is a replicant" garbage. I agree that this is a completely unnecessary sequel to a film that I personally consider to be some kind of a masterpiece. That's teaser looks terrible too and, worse, says to me that this is the first step in the setting up of a Blade Runner franchise. A baton handing over movie perhaps, a la The Force Awakens. As for Deckard being a replicant, I like it being ambiguous (which is something that this new film promises to put an end to one way or another). But I'm curious as to why you consider the idea that Deckard is a replicant to be "garbage", Slam. Depending on which version of the film you're watching, the presence of the origami unicorn at the end and the briefly glowing replicant eyes that the character has in one particular scene, pretty much scream that he's a replicant. Plus, Ridley Scott has gone on record saying that, yes, as far as he's concerned, Deckard is a replicant. Harrison Ford has also said that Ridley told him the same thing about the character on the film set (although Ford disagreed). Like I say, I prefer it to be left up to the viewer to decide, but it's clear that the character very well could be an android. But regardless of whether you believe he is or not, this isn't some far out theory, thought up by people who are unconnected to the film, so I wonder why you deem it "garbage"? I assume it's similar to my own feelings on the matter, though if not feel free to disagree slam. For me, it's an issue of narrative message; if he's secretly a replica than what am I supposed to gleam from the whole story? Contrariwise, if he's human and we see him become more and more detached from that humanity as he pursues the replicants until he is saved by a very human gesture from a replicant and then runs off into the sunset with another you get a very powerful parable. You ask yourself, what is the difference between man and machine? If man can fall back on singleminded, dogged "programming" in achieving a goal and machine is capable of non-self serving, emotional gestures then where is the dichotomy? What does it then really mean to be human? Or greater still need humanity be thought of as special? If he's just another robot doing his job you don't get that impact. The question of ,"is he man or machine?" is an interesting one in its own right, and it does provide dramatic tension to the movie if you focus on it but once you get the answer there is no real, "ah-ha!" moment to be had. |
|
|
|
Post by Slam_Bradley on Dec 22, 2016 21:18:29 GMT -5
I agree that this is a completely unnecessary sequel to a film that I personally consider to be some kind of a masterpiece. That's teaser looks terrible too and, worse, says to me that this is the first step in the setting up of a Blade Runner franchise. A baton handing over movie perhaps, a la The Force Awakens. As for Deckard being a replicant, I like it being ambiguous (which is something that this new film promises to put an end to one way or another). But I'm curious as to why you consider the idea that Deckard is a replicant to be "garbage", Slam. Depending on which version of the film you're watching, the presence of the origami unicorn at the end and the briefly glowing replicant eyes that the character has in one particular scene, pretty much scream that he's a replicant. Plus, Ridley Scott has gone on record saying that, yes, as far as he's concerned, Deckard is a replicant. Harrison Ford has also said that Ridley told him the same thing about the character on the film set (although Ford disagreed). Like I say, I prefer it to be left up to the viewer to decide, but it's clear that the character very well could be an android. But regardless of whether you believe he is or not, this isn't some far out theory, thought up by people who are unconnected to the film, so I wonder why you deem it "garbage"? I assume it's similar to my own feelings on the matter, though if not feel free to disagree slam. For me, it's an issue of narrative message; if he's secretly a replica than what am I supposed to gleam from the whole story? Contrariwise, if he's human and we see him become more and more detached from that humanity as he pursues the replicants until he is saved by a very human gesture from a replicant and then runs off into the sunset with another you get a very powerful parable. You ask yourself, what is the difference between man and machine? If man can fall back on singleminded, dogged "programming" in achieving a goal and machine is capable of non-self serving, emotional gestures then where is the dichotomy? What does it then really mean to be human? Or greater still need humanity be thought of as special? If he's just another robot doing his job you don't get that impact. The question of ,"is he man or machine?" is an interesting one in its own right, and it does provide dramatic tension to the movie if you focus on it but once you get the answer there is no real, "ah-ha!" moment to be had. Thematically, that's spot on. And that's why Philip K. Dick said that Deckard isn't a replicant. To quote Dick, "The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?" Without that the film really asks no question. Going strictly with the film...the "gotcha" replicant moments were almost all added in after the fact. The screenwriter meant Deckard to be a human and Harrison Ford believed him to be a human. Going into the actual film it's clear that Deckard is not a Nexus-7 or even probably a Nexus-6 as he clearly worked with the police for an extended period of time and has been retired. I've seen it said that Bryant is in on the fact that Deckard is a replicant...but all the police act like they know and have known Deckard for a long time and worked with him...so there would have to be a grand conspiracy among all the police for him to be a replicant. |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 23, 2016 1:49:43 GMT -5
The trailer offers nothing about story, which I find telling. It will probably be visual; though, it may just be the way the studio wants to market it. I don't think a sequel is needed; it didn't work in book format and I doubt it will here, either. i suspect it will be more of a rehash than a continuation.
I never bought Decker as a replicant, because there too many things contradicting that; and, as said above, it defeats the whole purpose of Deckard's journey. The problem with Scott's perspective is that it doesn't match the intent of the author or the screenwriter; but, reflects more Scott's interest in the visual elements of the story and less of the emotional elements. His films up to this point are for more visually oriented, with characters, plot and story subordinate to that. I'm not really convinced he ever moved that far beyond that mindset, though some films achieve it more than others. Gladiator is a bit stronger in those elements; but, the spectacle of the arena supersedes all.
The whole thing about Deckard, though, is more afterthought, based on the passage in the book where Deckard encounters another detective, from an unknown police station. It turns out the other cop is an android and the entire station are androids. That was the genesis of the idea and Scott went further with it than the screenwriters. The visual cue was too subtle in the original cut and went unnoticed until it was pointed out and everyone started looking for it. I first saw the idea in a film reference book and, later Paul Sammon's book, Future Noir. I prefer the more ambiguous cut, though without the lackluster narration. Always leave it to the viewer, as Patrick McGoohan masterfully did, with the Prisoner.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 23, 2016 2:04:04 GMT -5
The trailer offers nothing about story, which I find telling. These days initial teaser trailers never do. The first teaser is just that, a look at the visuals and a tagline or some such to make people aware of it. You usually don't get a glimpse of a movie's story until the first full trailer (which is probably months away for this film) and then only hints. It's usually the third release (2nd trailer) where you finally get a real sense of story for an upcoming movie. Look at how they did Force Awakens, or Rogue One. Or better yet Guardians of the Galaxy 2-first teaser just a bunch of action visuals and the tape playing, no story. First full trailer, more action shots, a sens eof possible villain and the post credit humorous scene with Mantis but still no story. The next trailer, which will hit a little closer to the movie's actual release will finally give story hints. That's the way modern movie marketing works. You want people clicking on your teaser or trailer and getting buzz and trending, but you don't want to give too much away because then you run into property fatigue and if they feel they know too much about the story it hurts box office as they pass on it. The first teaser is really just a shout out to say hey we're doing this expect it on this date and start getting hyped up, it's not a sense of what it will actually be about or any of the actual content in the movie and doesn't reflect what the film wil actually be. The days of first trailers doing that are long gone in Hollywoodland. -M |
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Dec 23, 2016 10:41:30 GMT -5
The trailer offers nothing about story, which I find telling. These days initial teaser trailers never do. The first teaser is just that, a look at the visuals and a tagline or some such to make people aware of it. You usually don't get a glimpse of a movie's story until the first full trailer (which is probably months away for this film) and then only hints. It's usually the third release (2nd trailer) where you finally get a real sense of story for an upcoming movie. Look at how they did Force Awakens, or Rogue One. Or better yet Guardians of the Galaxy 2-first teaser just a bunch of action visuals and the tape playing, no story. First full trailer, more action shots, a sens eof possible villain and the post credit humorous scene with Mantis but still no story. The next trailer, which will hit a little closer to the movie's actual release will finally give story hints. That's the way modern movie marketing works. You want people clicking on your teaser or trailer and getting buzz and trending, but you don't want to give too much away because then you run into property fatigue and if they feel they know too much about the story it hurts box office as they pass on it. The first teaser is really just a shout out to say hey we're doing this expect it on this date and start getting hyped up, it's not a sense of what it will actually be about or any of the actual content in the movie and doesn't reflect what the film wil actually be. The days of first trailers doing that are long gone in Hollywoodland. -M I find that trailers anymore, regardless of teasers or release trailers, are completely devoid of story. They are too focused on big visuals and quick quips, giving little idea of acting or story. The examples you cite still didn't provide that, for my money, in their later trailers and the movies themselves had pretty thin stories. It's why I don't go to movies anymore (that and uncomfortable theaters). I just posted the Rocketeer trailer on the Christmas thread. It's a perfect example of how to grab an audience's attention, letting you know what the movie is about, giving you some character moments and some stunning visuals, without giving away the plot. Too many trailers these days seem to be little more than moving posters. |
|
