Here's The Latest Blade Runner 2049 Trailer

How would you like some replicants to start your morning?

In case you'd forgotten, Blade Runner is back. It's technically called Blade Runner 2049, which isn't due for international release until October 6. And while it does have Harrison Ford answering "questions" from a much younger, but fellow cop in the form of Ryan Gosling, it also features Jared Leto looking like an A-grade creep.

We've been talking a little in the office about how good the new Blade Runner could be. Mark and our publisher Danny are pretty optimistic, coming off the back of Arrival. I'm highly sceptical, but still a little hopeful: if it comes off, there could be enough motivation for a studio, somewhere, to reboot that very excellent Blade Runner adventure game from the Red Alert makers.


Comments

    It hurts me to think Scott's time is done, but now we have Villeneuve. His track record is already impressive, so we can be excited about this.

      Totaly agree with you re. Scott! Villeneuve is perfect for this role!

      I'm also digging how J├│hannsson is keeping a lot of Vangelis' base score and bringing it forward. Also this trailer is not pulling it's punches and it would appear that this movie will be pacier than the original. The only thing I'm not a fan of is the new Spinner, but that's only a minor issue.

      Last edited 09/05/17 7:37 am

        Everything is looking good but really I hope the pace of the film is languishing, so I'm preparing to be disappointed :/

      He's put the pressure on himself, first this and then Dune.

    Scott's time isnt done. Even his crap work is better than most of the other commercial film makers around. Remember people said the same about him after Alien. They most certainly said it after Blade Runner. Then some said it after Gladiator. Then Kingdom of Heaven. And all the ones between and after,

    Sadly online people these days cant tell the difference between a technically bad film and a film they just dont like.

      Prometheus.....

        ... was technically brilliant, despite a few annoying flaws. but even a flawed film from Ridley is better than most other peoples average films. Except for Exodus. That film just seemed like a bad idea from the drawing board, maybe he was still coping from his brothers death?

          I would absolutely disagree. Fair warning, there's a bit of a rant coming here, but Scott's not anywhere near his best no matter how you look at it and I actually think most of his recent films have been outright bad (I say this as a big fan of Bladerunner and as someone who would place Alien among the very best films I've seen).

          I hated Prometheus, but that wasn't just an issue of taste - the dialogue and writing was unbelievably poor throughout, most of the performances were as weak as the writing and the plot managed to both say too much (spoiling the mystery of Alien) and too little (It didn't make any sense and just vaguely gestured at some grand philosophical ideas that it approached in the most boring way possible). It wasn't scary when it was trying to be, it wasn't exciting when it tried to be and above all it wasn't interesting in the slightest.

          Terrible characters, awful writing, weak performances and uninspired set/alien design all of which both on a technical level and an aesthetic one paled in comparison to that of the original make Prometheus technically poor as a standalone film. Considering Alien it's even worse. Scott had every available resource, every available opportunity to make a great film and he didn't. There were only 2 saving graces in my eyes - Fassbender and the C-section scene. Everything else was limp and uninspired at best and generally far, far worse.

          It's not that I want to throw shade on the guy, but I really don't think his current stuff holds a candle to his older stuff, not just for nostalgic or personal reasons, but for technical and objective ones too.

            all those things you say as "not a matter of taste" are exactly that. I didnt realise the film was supposed to be scary? Just because Alien was, doesnt mean this was supposed to be. Sadly these days audience wont just go on a ride come what may. Some of the best things I have seen in years have been ones where you have no idea at all what you are watching (see any Black Mirror episode) they dont know what you are committing yourself too until you are in the middle of it.

            So many of this films failures are based on what it isnt not what it is. He try to warn some of us going in, often going out of his way to say its removed from Alien. A lot of us listened, we went in with a blank slate. Others didnt. Dont get me wrong there are some lines, some plot beats which annoys me but while you say it wasnt interesting in the slightest, it interested me greatly. Taste. A matter of taste.

            All artists in every genre or medium have hits and misses. They are human beings. Sadly when directors/writers miss it is the greatest injustice in the history of all history. This happens online everyday about virtually every tv show, game and movies. The outrage would be comical if it wasnt just so deafening and relentless. The rewarding entertainment I got from the two hours of watching the flawed Prometheus far outshines the five years listening to people incessantly banging on about its cinema crime. If I was to believe everything I read not a single person in Hollywood knows how to write but everyone at home is an expert.

              Ignoring the implicit 'only a chef can know when food is bad' argument you finish with I don't think that it's unfair to say that the film wanted to be scary - it was part of a franchise associated with horror, it had set-pieces in which the survival of a character was in question (or rather should have been in question had the film not relied so heavily on the tropes Alien helped to introduce) and featured a cast that was killed off as the film progressed.

              In my opinion the best scene in the film was a sequence that falls comfortably into the category of body horror and at least part of the reason behind that was one of the best scenes was for the fact that it knew exactly what it wanted to be - it wanted to be horrifying and uncomfortable and it most certainly was, but most of the film was just mired down by vague lore and obvious setup for a future sequel - robbing the film of a satisfying beginning or ending while preying on the love for the franchise to make money and draw interest in future films. That's plain lazy film-making from a director that people still insist is visionary.

              Again, I don't want to bash the guy, nor do I want to attack those that may have enjoyed Prometheus, but there are objective reasons I come to the subjective conclusion I do. I don't put any faith in the argument that it's purely a matter of taste because I'm well aware of the reasons I find the film isn't to my taste and those reasons are readily apparent in the film.

              If you want an example of a technically brilliant film I hate there's 2001: A Space Odyssey. I think the film looks fantastic, the writing is really good and the set design is impeccable. Technically it's a great film, but I hate it for the fact that in trying to be an arty, ambitious film it left behind the tight pacing of the middle section of the film which as a whole is the part I liked the most. A beautiful film that lacks a soul. Technically near perfect, but cold and distant. That's a subjective opinion that doesn't arrive from any particular decisions - I simply don't like Kubrick's style. That is not the reason I don't like Prometheus however. Internet reactions are no doubt almost universally over-the-top, but that doesn't invalidate the very real reasons behind them. There was a reason people liked it and a reason people didn't. Those reasons aren't a matter of taste - how important each of those reasons are to the audience is.

              The line between objective and subjective is of course very blurry - I think the costume design in both Prometheus and The Martian was really poor while many other praise it, so obviously anyone's qualitative statement about any media should be taken with a grain of salt, but I certainly think that it's reductive to argue that labeling a film in either the positive or negative is necessarily a subjective action, it depends very much on the justification. That's one of the reasons many critics dislike number or star systems in reviews - the conclusion doesn't matter half as much as the justifications.

                I'll go on the record here by saying I think prometheus gets way too much hate. My fave film of all time is aliens so I'm a little biased but I thought it was pretty intriguing and I thought it looked great. It's certainly not a classic but I think it's much better than a lot of Sci if dross that's out there .

      Online and offline; a technically bad film is one I don't like. There is no difference.
      But Sir Scott is not technically bad. Far from. His tradecraft is mighty.
      But for me, poor script and/or casting can ruin everything. Prometheus' flaws are well documented, they don't need repeating here. He acknowledges them, I think this film is meant to be his rebuttal. His atonement.
      Instead, he might have done it again...and hence I am sad; for him and a beloved franchise.

    Ok, that gave me a bit of an erection.

    Once a year, bottle of red wine, Blade Runner. It has a very special place in my heart.

    Not sure if i'll see this one - i don't want to compromise my memories (funnily enough).

      Those aren't your memories, they're someone else's... they're Tyrell's niece's.

        The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very very brightly Bemy.

    I really hope Roger Deakins wins an oscar for this, dude is one of the greatest cinematographers to never win one.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now