Oh, I don't expect it to come close to the original.

I'd say Blade Runner is up there with the absolute heavyweights of the sci-fi genre like 2001 and Metropolis.

This one is sure to have more schlocky action to appeal to mainstream audiences (just about everyone I've introduced to the movie has found it boring for the most part).

But I'm definitely excited for it. Oddly enough, I think I'd be less excited if Ridley were directing. Don't get me wrong, the guy is still capable of directing a decent movie. But he's never come close to recapturing the magic that he harnessed with Alien and Blade Runner IMO.

I'd compare him to Tarantino in that regard. Much like Tarantino with Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, his first two efforts (well, besides The Duelists) were by far his best.

Looks like what I expect: rehash and more hyper visuals. I also suspect they are going with Scott's insistence that Deckard is a replicant and probably all of the Blade Runners will turn out to be ones; or, at least, the really good ones. Still more excited for Valerian than this.

I'm actually quite partial to The Duelists, though some of it is the Napoleonic setting. It did take a couple of viewings to fully form an idea of what is really going on, aside from the duels. It looks beautiful and has some tremendous scenes; but, it is very episodic and doesn't really hold together as a whole, unless you fill in a lot of blanks. I still prefer it to Barry Lyndon, though.

So many other movies have now followed the Blade Runner look that it is no longer an original stylistic setting of the future. Since this movie is a continuation then the look and texture of the new film should follow the original's styling, which i do not see or feel from the trailer. 

While the movie may be a good one, it just lacks anything at the moment which from the trailer(s) which has me saying it is a "must see" movie. It will depend upon what else is showing around it at release time as to whether i see it on the big screen or wait for rental. 

... but tell me how you really feel about the film!



You don't? From the Vangelis-like score by Johannsson to the gigantic publicity for Atari, all we've seen there remind me of the universe we got introduced to in 1982. Same colour palette, same post-industrial, quasi steampunk aesthetics... It all looks right, if nothing else. The first teaser too, with its visual reference to Shelley.



I agree, it was a trailblazer and has been much copied; the sequel has zero chance of being as original. But then, everything I saw in the recent Rogue One was re-heated, and I loved the film anyway... precisely because it fit in well with, and paid homage to, its illustrious precursor. I hope the new Blade Runner will be as respectful to the original film.



I'm willing to bet we saw 50% of all the explosions the movie will contain right there in that trailer! Hollywood marketing must have its due, but Villeneuve is not an explosions kind of guy. As for beautiful people, well... Rutger Hauer, Darryl Hannah, Sean Young and Harrison Ford weren't exactly unknown names in 82. I'd rather have all such films shot with relatively unknown actors, but that's not how the biz works.




Unnecessary, I fully agree. 95% of sequels are unnecessary, and most of them fall so short of the original that they should never have been made. The best we can seriously hope for is that in its attempt to milk the cow yet again, Hollywood might from time to time produce something interesting (Aliens, the road warrior, the godfather part II, attack of the clones)*. In this particular case, the director is such a brilliant guy that I have full confidence he will make a good film. I'm not convinced it will be the film people expect, but I'm sure it'll be worth seeing.







* One of these films does not belong with the others. Can you guess which one?

If Ridley wants to remake one of his old movies, how about GI Jane? There's a turkey waiting to be fixed.