U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-17-2017, 11:46 AM
 
10,098 posts, read 5,914,367 times
Reputation: 5225

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
New trailer! Lots of new footage. Die-hard BLADE RUNNER nerds will recognize the first scene.

I hope this music in the trailer isn't the music in the movie. It's very ... typical.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZOaI_Fn5o4
The trailer looks really cool and I think it will be a great movie. The director always delivers and he will with this one.

On that note, it doesn't really feel like a Blade Runner movie at all though. It feels different and almost a stand alone film, which isn't a bad thing. I still think it has traces of that "bad remake that doesn't match the original" elements to it but I think it will be better than the crap we've seen with the remake to Total Recall and others.

I just wonder why they couldn't keep the worn look of the future in the first Blade Runner? In that future, things actually looked as though they were used. In this one, everything looks right out of the box new. Some of the world looks as though it was created by Apple. The noir element is totally gone.

And did I see hints of an underground tribe of people sub-plot? That the big secret is that replicants are living in the sewers or something? Or perhaps that everyone is a replicant and the last remaining humans live in tunnels? It looks interesting but I am surprised that a film of this caliber would resort to such a tired plot, if true. The secret people living underneath society has already been done.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-09-2017, 06:41 PM
 
3,621 posts, read 1,276,734 times
Reputation: 2075
Blade Runner 2049 has received an R rating for “violence, some sexuality, nudity, and language.”

Denis Villeneuve's 'Blade Runner 2049' Has Officially Been Rated R
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 05:53 AM
 
Location: Maine
12,929 posts, read 17,604,795 times
Reputation: 14043
Quote:
Originally Posted by AFtrEFkt View Post
Blade Runner 2049 has received an R rating for “violence, some sexuality, nudity, and language.”

Denis Villeneuve's 'Blade Runner 2049' Has Officially Been Rated R
Good. The first movie was a story for grown-ups. I'm hoping this one will be too. Fingers crossed. Socks up.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 06:06 AM
 
15,014 posts, read 7,480,804 times
Reputation: 13995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
Good. The first movie was a story for grown-ups. I'm hoping this one will be too. Fingers crossed. Socks up.
But the first movie wasn't R-rated.

R ratings tend to be more often from pandering to non-adult tendencies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 06:26 AM
 
Location: Maine
12,929 posts, read 17,604,795 times
Reputation: 14043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
But the first movie wasn't R-rated.
Yes it was. Probably for the brief nudity and extreme violence. Although I do think one character can be seen smoking in one scene, and you know how that drives the MPAA crazy.

Blade Runner (1982) - IMDb
Blade Runner (1982)
R | 1h 57min | Sci-Fi, Thriller | 25 June 1982 (USA)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
R ratings tend to be more often from pandering to non-adult tendencies.
I hear you, and you're not wrong on 90% of movies these days. R-rating tends to mean adolescent humor of the DEADPOOL variety. But I'm hoping this movie will prove an exception to the rule.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 08:09 AM
 
15,014 posts, read 7,480,804 times
Reputation: 13995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark S. View Post
Yes it was. Probably for the brief nudity and extreme violence. Although I do think one character can be seen smoking in one scene, and you know how that drives the MPAA crazy.

Blade Runner (1982) - IMDb
Blade Runner (1982)
R | 1h 57min | Sci-Fi, Thriller | 25 June 1982 (USA)




I hear you, and you're not wrong on 90% of movies these days. R-rating tends to mean adolescent humor of the DEADPOOL variety. But I'm hoping this movie will prove an exception to the rule.
Well, nobody cared about movie smoking in the 80s. Must have been R-rated for violence, but that must have been barely.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 09:04 AM
 
Location: Maine
12,929 posts, read 17,604,795 times
Reputation: 14043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Well, nobody cared about movie smoking in the 80s. Must have been R-rated for violence, but that must have been barely.
By the standards of 1982, BLADE RUNNER was very violent. Rachel shoots Leon in the head. Deckard shoots Pris twice and she dies in shrieking convulsions with big, bloody holes in her. Batty kills Tyrell by shoving his thumbs through his eye sockets (some cuts of the movie actually showed this).

It may seem fairly tame by today's standards, but in 1982 it earned its R-rating. My parents wouldn't let me see it, no matter how much I begged.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 12:24 PM
 
15,014 posts, read 7,480,804 times
Reputation: 13995
I guess I'm comparing it to pre-MPAA movies like "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Jaws."


It was a heck of a lot tamer than John Carpenter's "The Thing," that took me months to get out of my head.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 01:19 PM
 
3,621 posts, read 1,276,734 times
Reputation: 2075
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
It was a heck of a lot tamer than John Carpenter's "The Thing," that took me months to get out of my head.
Don't get me started. I love that movie. Mind-blowing FX for the time courtesy of Rob Bottin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-10-2017, 01:29 PM
 
Location: Maine
12,929 posts, read 17,604,795 times
Reputation: 14043
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
I guess I'm comparing it to pre-MPAA movies like "Bonnie and Clyde" and "Jaws."
It was different in the '70s. "PG" back then was more equivalent to PG-13 or even R-rating today. I grew up with kids whose parents would ONLY let them watch G-rated movies. Most Bond movies were PG, and I knew people who thought Bond movies were borderline porn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Entertainment and Arts > Movies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top