Posted on 09/22/2017 6:15:44 AM PDT by C19fan
Tickets for Alcon Entertainment/Warner Bros./Sony’s Blade Runner 2049, the sequel to Ridley Scott’s cult 1982 movie, go on sale tomorrow, 14 days before its Oct. 6 opening date.
(Excerpt) Read more at deadline.com ...
He's not in the movie. Ford and Olmos are the only members of the original cast who reprised their roles. Too bad they couldn't get Emmett Walsh back for a cameo either - he's probably pushing 80, but he still acts and Bryant was a great character.
Speaking of Rutger Hauer, I always wondered why after Blade Runner his career never really took off as it should have. You'd think he'd be on every director's A-list to play complex, sympathetic villain type roles after Batty. Instead, he went on to do a lot of movies, but they were mostly B-grade, often straight to video throwaways. There was nothing really on par with what he gave us in Blade Runner. Rutger Hauer wound up having a strange career trajectory - arthouse movies in Holland, Bladerunner and a couple of other decent A-list roles in Hollywood, and then mostly B movies.
A lot Stronger!
Hauer had done some awesome work, much of it over the top. “The Hitcher” and “Hobo with a Shotgun” are good examples of this.
I could not disagree with you more about Alien vs Aliens. Like the Matrix, the original Alien movie was a fresh take on interesting concepts- in this case, an incredible biology that was great and now much copied for sci fi fans. The sequal was just a dumb big-budget dime-a-dozen fight fest.
Theories are already circulating. The most prominent is that Dekard is a Nexus-7 model (Roy Batty was a Nexus-6). A Nexus-7 model has a variable lifespan, dialable by the corporation. Who knows how long Dekard will live?
It also makes a lot of sense: Hunt skinjobs with a better skinjob. Dekard is not stronger than Leon or Roy, but he's clearly more clever.
It also cost $43 million to make. So, if they release to $43 million but paid $43 million, how do they make money?
Answer: VOLUME.
The volume only goes up to 11.
Saw the original in 82....hated it...boring, lifeless, dreary, other than Sean Young who was the only interesting character in the film...unfortunately she was only in a few scenes. I saw the ‘directors’ cut at the Egyptian recently...still horrible. I think BR is one of those films the experts say you should love but people don’t want to admit they hate it.
True indeed.
But Ridley Scott is, as a director, pretty... umm... inventive!
We shall see!
I never pay any attention to professional critics, and Blade Runner one of my favorite films (certainly my favorite in the science fiction genre). So much for your theory that all people really hate it but pretend to like it because of expert opinions.
Well, what if you need it to be just a little louder, to push it over the top?
Mine goes to 12.
Then he is a fool. The movie was genius and his performance was excellent.
Then up the gain!
The first Rambo movie was the best, and was based on the book. (Both Rambo & the Sheriff died at the end of the book...so some tweaking was necessary to get sequels.) The last movie was good because Rambo returned home, bringing some closure to his chaotic life. The in-between movies were dreck. (But, I watched them anyway.)
If I remember right, Rutger Hauer once said the Batty dying monologue was his improvisation.
They have a chance with Bautista to do it again. The short clip on Youtube with him seems to show his character reads and recommends books, so he might have wisdom to share when he tussles with Gosling.
Years ago, there was a poll among sci-fi writers as to their favorite movie. Blade Runner came out on top.
One person’s opinion does not invalidate my theory...the film bombed when it came out and the fact that they have released alternate versions of the film is not an indication of excellence.
There are plenty of high profile movies out there that I have no use for. For instance, I never understood the appeal of the Star Wars or Batman franchises to anyone past middle or high school age. But I'm not so condescending as to deny the fact that those who say that they like these movies do so genuinely.
In the scene where Decker looks in the mirror there is an electric glow which flashes in his eyes....
I don’t doubt they put that scene in there. But, IMHO, was a dumb move because it does not track with the rest of the story.
The movie pointed out several times that the Batty crew were the most advanced line of replicants the Tyrell corporation had ever produced. If Deckard was a replicant maybe he was an earlier model. That would also explain why he wasn't as strong as the Batty crew. I have absolutely nothing to base this on but it would fill the plot hole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.