Check Out The New Blade Runner 2049 Trailer

[Steven Bogos]

Check Out The New Blade Runner 2049 Trailer

The new trailer for the upcoming sequel to 1982's Blade Runner shows us a bit more of the world of 2042.

The original Blade Runner movie, shot in 1982, was set in the "distant future" year of 2019. The sequel, due out this October, takes place 23 years later, in 2042. We got a very brief look at it earlier in the year, but now the movie's second, extended trailer has gone live. You can check it out in the video to the right.

It starts off with Jared Leto's Tyrel, in his elaborate apartment making what we assume to be new Replicants. We then see Ryan Gosling's K move his way through an outstanding recreation of the first film's Neo Los Angeles, as well as a few new locales, including what appears to be the dilapidated remains of North Korea (we can only hope).

K meets Harrison Ford, reprising his role as Deckard, and the two seemingly go on some sort of adventure. The trailer teases just enough without giving too much away, whetting our appetite for the film's October 6 release.

[gallery=7344]

Source: YouTube [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCcx85zbxz4]

Permalink

 

[Programmed_For_Damage]

I hope this doesn't just turn into a generic action movie because stylistically it looks brilliant. They've really captured the tone of the original and expanded upon it.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

I still maintain that there's no reason for this movie to exist and the original is fine without a sequel.

Having said that, stylistically speaking it looks pretty consistent with the original and it looks nice.

Hopefully it's not a boring movie with fancy action sequences.

 

[Hawki]

The trailer looks a bit too actiony for my tastes, but I'm hoping this is marketing presenting the film differently than how it actually is.

I agree with both Programmed and Fiz, that the aesthetic is captured excellently (I also like the hover cars at ground level - progression of technology and all that), and that Blade Runner didn't need a sequel. I will say that I doubt it will surpass or even equal the original, but that doesn't preclude it from being a good film in its own right.

 

[Fijiman]

While this looks interesting enough, I'd still need to see the original before I even considering actually seeing this one.

 

[Darth Rosenberg]

I still maintain that there's no reason for this movie to exist and the original is fine without a sequel.

Having said that, stylistically speaking it looks pretty consistent with the original and it looks nice.

Hopefully it's not a boring movie with fancy action sequences.

I agree that if I had a choice I wouldn't ever see another Blade Runner, as there's simply no need and who on earth could match it? But whilst Scott and one of the original writers could cause issues, with Villeneuve, Deakins (DP), Johann Johannsson (music) and Joe Walker (editor), to name a few, behind the camera - the same team behind Sicario and Arrival - I'd say it's at least as safe as it could possibly be.

Villeneuve, in particular, seems a vastly superior director to Scott these days, and if anyone can pull off another Blade Runner it's him [and his ridiculously brilliant collaborators].

The trailer looks a bit too actiony for my tastes, but I'm hoping this is marketing presenting the film differently than how it actually is.

Given the trailers for Sicario were completely misleading - ditto Arrival, frankly - it's maybe the norm for Villeneuve films to be marketed terribly, and borderline disingenuously. I hope it's the case for this, 'cause yeah, 'action' and set-pieces should the last thing anyone thinks of when making another Blade Runner.

I will say that I doubt it will surpass or even equal the original, but that doesn't preclude it from being a good film in its own right.

The original's a peerless classic, and given the, er, connections it's going to be hard to not compare the two... But as I said above; provided Scott and any old ties to the original don't get in the way, Villeneuve and co are safe hands. If the script's weak (that's certainly a possibility. I dislike Leto, too, and would rather he wasn't in it), then they'll be hamstrung - so we'll have to settle for an incredible film on a technical level, which I'd be just about fine with.

 

[Scarim Coral]

I really not feeling the hype enough to go see this in cinema. I still see it as another one of those making a modern sequel from a good old film which those usually turns out badly.

 

[CellShaded]

Looks faithful to the original. Sure, the first didn't need a sequel. But it's still getting one, and by the looks of the trailer, it could be worse. I'm definitely excited.

 

[Chewster]

Pretty much everything everyone has said here: the ascetic looks good, Villeneuve is a good director and has decent collaborators but am skeptical they will pull it off and the original doesn't need a sequel. At least it's not being directed by Scott himself who somehow managed to create two of the most iconic sci fi films of the second half of this century and then proceed to blow it on any subsequent attempt. I've yet to see Alien: Covenant though I'm not hopeful. RT gave it a 75% but RT also gave Prometheus a 72% and it was a confusing, horrible bag of trash despite the strong cast and great acting from Fassbender. As much as I hate Aliens, there is a reason it was received as well as the first.

I actually think Leto is a decent enough actor when he's not trying to be an intentional weirdo and it's exciting to see Mackenzie Davis in this as well. I'm a fan of her in Halt and Catch Fire and that one really upbeat episode of Black Mirror. The cast is pretty stacked by the looks of it.

Cautious optimism is about where I'm at.

Also, fun fact for y'all: in screenshot number 4 up there, the Korean 행운 (haeng-un) means "Luck" so take that as you will.

 

[epicpost]

fantastic!!!! but will see

 

[elmerhoffman]

I'm going to watch this movie these days.