The Trailer Park: A Long Time Coming

The biggest movie news of the week has got to be the teaser trailer for the long-awaited sequel to Ridley Scott’s sci-fi cult classic. Let’s take a look.

‘Blade Runner 2049’

The moment I watched this preview, I’m somewhat certain I yelled like a giddy schoolgirl. However, I have some reservations, primarily a concern about how much input Ridley Scott has on this project. He’s simply not the same filmmaker he once was. That said, I jumped for joy after seeing that the movie will be directed by the highly-talented Denis Villeneuve, a filmmaker who’s continuously surprised with each feature. Also, I love the look of the little footage we’re allowed to see in the teaser. Along with Jóhann Jóhannsson’s haunting music, the whole thing feels very reminiscent of the original film. At this time, this has jumped to my number one most anticipated film of 2017, but I want more trailers!

‘xXx: Return of Xander Cage’

I never cared much for the first ‘xXx’ movie – and certainly never sat through something so asinine again – so it pretty much goes without saying that I care even less about this sequel. In a matter of two minutes one can easily predict where things are going and how it will ultimately end. This is not an action-packed spectacular that requires much thought. At least with the ‘Furious’ movies, the filmmakers blend some depth, however minor and arguably trivial, into the brainless vehicular mayhem. This is literally an intentional bombardment of the senses to make one’s eyes and ears bleed. Poor Vin Diesel. This sort of garbage is the only success he appears capable of accomplishing.

‘Despicable Me 3’

What better way to remove the horrible aftertaste of the previous trailer than Steve Carell’s villainous but lovable antihero Gru? I have a not-so-secret love for the series and hope for this second sequel to be just as satisfying. Following in the tradition of its predecessors, the trailer is more akin to a short animated film rather than an assortment of clips from the finished project, and I laughed out loud at various times. The moment that ultimately sold me was seeing Trey Parker’s supervillain, Balthazar Bratt. The ’80s fashion disaster is awesome! The hair! The clothes! And the sick moves with the tubular tunes! I love him, and I’m almost more excited to see him than Gru.

‘Life’

While not in the proper flow of things, I nonetheless like this trailer. I’m not really certain of what to expect from a still relatively unknow director who has yet to impress me. Still, it looks interesting enough to have piqued my curiosity.

For more of the latest movie trailers, check out our trailers page.

31 comments

  1. Chris B

    Blade Runner is my favorite film so naturally I’m anticipating the shit out of the sequel. Looks like they nailed the dystopian atmosphere and all the neon pretty well. Really dig the score in the trailer as well. Hopefully Harrison Ford doesn’t actually take away from the film as opposed to adding to it. I found him to be sonewhat of a distraction in The Force Awakens. Looking forward to the next trailer…wanna see more of the city and it’s inhabitants.

    • Bolo

      I feel the same way. I wish Harrison Ford weren’t in this sequel, it makes me fear that this will end up being a ‘The Two Jakes’ type of sequel that is too obsessed with chasing the first film to ever become its own thing. Hopefully they find a clever way to use the Deckard character and move tell a story that stands on its own.

  2. DarkMonk

    Yeah, saying you don’t want Ridley Scott’s input on a sequel to HIS MASTERPIECE is a really dumb thing to say. I think The Martian proves he just as great as he ever was.
    And giving props to Jóhann Jóhannsson’s Music?!! All he is doing is USING VANGELIS’ cues!!! It isn’t even Johannsson’s music!
    Show a little respect, and a little class.

      • NJScorpio

        I’m not going to get into a rant defending Prometheus (as I don’t really wish to defend it), but one of the biggest complaints I’ve read was regarding the ineptitude of the crew. Now, I haven’t seen this in awhile, but my two cents: It is reasonable to think that, in the future, space travel will be common enough that you’d have some inept crews, with people not doing their jobs well enough…like real life. While that ineptitude is what led to the majority of the events in the movie, I don’t (necessarily) look at it like a lazy way of moving the story along, but that it was a flawed bunch of people who ****ed up.

    • chris b

      I’m a pretty big Ridley Scott fan myself, but even I’ll be the first to admit the quality of his films have slipped a lot in the past 10-15 years. When I heard wasn’t going to be directing the BR sequel I was pretty relieved TBH. Some directors just peak at different points in their career. It doesn’t mean they don’t deserve respect for their previous accomplishments. I’m sure everyone thought it was great news when they heard George Lucas would be writing and directing all of the Star Wars prequels and look how that turned out. Sometimes the torch needs to be past from one filmmaker to another…

    • Thulsadoom

      I love Ridley Scott, but I’ve always found his films hit-and-miss from the beginning. He’s a wonderful visual director, and if he picks good scripts, he’s great. If he doesn’t, you get something that looks great but not a lot else. I think he’s been pretty consistent, overall. Even Prometheus has its plus points. Terrible script, but it looked amazing, with Ridley’s usual eye for visual style. Watch all the making-of, and you find yourself wanting to like the film and wishing he’d just picked better writers. 😉 And as DarkMonk said, The Martian is a good recent example of when he has a good script and story.

  3. Deaditelord

    I’m going to try to limit spoilers due to the slim chance that someone here has not seen Blade Runner, but I find it odd that the sequel appears to be ignoring what was revealed about Deckard at the end of the movie. Not saying that Deckard’s presence is a deal breaker. I just hope the sequel comes up with a good explanation as to why he’s still around.

      • Deaditelord

        Josh I would love to know why you think the Director’s Cut / Final Cut ending is ambiguous. To be as vague as possible, how else would Gaff know to leave that particular item for Deckard?

        As to the other comment, perhaps I’m wrong here, but I think most would agree that the studio altered ending in the original version is crap. The Director’s Cut is why I consider Blade Runner to be a classic. It fixes the misguided studio changes.

        • First off, let’s do away with the pretense of worrying about spoilers for a 35-year-old movie that everybody has already seen.

          Gaff leaves origami trinkets for Deckard throughout Blade Runner. Before the unicorn, there was the little matchstick man with a hard-on, and a chicken. These did not correlate to him knowing anything about Deckard’s dreams. They were obviously his way of taunting Deckard for thinking with his dick and for being a coward. The unicorn could be interpreted similarly. He’s telling Deckard that his plan to start a new life with Rachel is a fantasy. It will never work out for him, because she’s not “real.” Deckard chooses to ignore this and runs off with her anyway.

          In the film’s original theatrical cut, there was no question that Deckard was human. The idea of him possibly being a Replicant doesn’t even occur in that version of the movie. By inserting the unicorn dream into the Director’s Cut (and Final Cut), Scott has added ambiguity to the issue that wasn’t there before. Could the origami unicorn mean that Gaff knows about Deckard’s dream, the same way that Deckard knew about Rachel’s memory of the spider? Now that’s a question. Nonetheless, in no version of the movie is it explicitly stated that Deckard is a Replicant. In the original version, that’s never a possibility at all. In later versions, it’s ambiguous. The ambiguity adds a little depth to the movie, but it in no way proves that Deckard must be a Replicant.

          The fact of the matter is that Ridley Scott only jumped on the “Deckard is a Replicant” bandwagon after-the-fact, when the fan theory became popular. During production and for several years afterward, he dismissed the suggestion. What he says about the matter today has no bearing on his original intention when making the movie. Fortunately, he’s been wise enough in all his recuts to leave the question ambiguous, rather than try to definitively impose an answer. (Lord knows, I’m sure he thought about bringing Edward James Olmos in to record new off-camera dialogue saying, “Deckard, you so stupid. Don’t you know you a Skin Job too, dummy?”)

          In MY opinion, the movie works much better if Deckard is human. His character arc is much richer if, as a human being, he has a crisis of conscience and must overcome his prejudices to recognize that Replicants are living beings. Throwing in a “ZOMG!! Deckard was a Replicant too!!!” plot twist would be a gimmicky Twilight Zone ending, and would diminish some of the depth of the story.

          The fact that Harrison Ford is an old man in the sequel suggests that the character must be human in that movie, because why would a Replicant age?

          • Deaditelord

            Sorry, I thought there was a rule about posting spoilers, hence my vagueness. Glad to see there is some latitude.

            I am in complete agreement that Deckard is a human if we are basing that assessment on the original cut. There’s nothing to suggest otherwise. I also would agree with your interpretation of the unicorn origami if going by the original cut since the dream sequence is missing from that version. However, the inclusion of the dream sequence in the director’s cut / final cut supports the interpretation that Deckard is a replicant to the point where I can’t imagine someone watching Blade Runner for the first time coming up with another interpretation of the unicorn origami. In my opinion…

            I think I should clarify that I’m not against Deckard being a human. If the director’s cut had not included the unicorn scene, I would still say it’s a better version of Blade Runner simply because it doesn’t include that god awful, studio mandated coda. It completely undermines the movie. Batty’s conversation with Tyrell and Batty’s subsequent death at the end of the movie proves that replicants are unable to survive past their four year lifespan. To completely ignore this point by including an obviously tacked on monologue about how the four year lifespan doesn’t apply to Rachel is a cop out.

            I’m actually surprised to see support for the original cut. I honestly thought the consensus was that the director’s cut / final cut was superior to the original cut. Having said that, none of this dampens my excitement about finally getting a sequel… especially with Denis Villeneuve at the helm.

          • cardpetree

            What’s the point of daydreaming about the Unicorn if it’s not meant to signal that Deckard is a Replicant at the end of the movie?

          • cardpetree

            I understand that but if Deckard is actually a human, there’s no reason to show him daydreaming about a Unicorn. There’s no significance to that daydream at all.

          • cardpetree

            There’s only a significance if he’s a Replicant, hence the Unicorn origami at the end of the movie. If he’s human, then it’s just a coincidence that Gaff made him and left him the unicorn origami. The origami suggests that Gaff knows what Deckard’s dreams are.

          • Yes, it could be a coincidence. Hence the ambiguity. If the movie settled this matter conclusively, people wouldn’t still be arguing about it 25 years after the Director’s Cut!

          • cardpetree

            Regardless of what I’m arguing, it’s obviously a mute point. Harrison Ford’s character in the 2049 Blade Runner trailer is clearly an old man. Unless his character is not meant to be Deckard from the original Blade Runner.

          • “Unless his character is not meant to be Deckard from the original Blade Runner.”

            Great point. Perhaps the Deckard we all know and love from ‘Blade Runner’ was a replicant based on the skills and likeness of ‘some unnamed chap’ who has now aged to look like Harrison Ford in ‘Blade Runner 2049’. Then again, the new trailer has the line ‘I did your job once – I was good at it.’. So it has to be the original Deckard. Right?

            Unless the unnamed chap they used to mold replicant Deckard was a blade runner, too. Confusing!

  4. photogdave

    Surprise, surprise. Like a fly on shit, as soon as the name Ridley Scott is mentioned Mr. Zyber zooms into trash Prometheus. Everyone who visit this page knows how much you hate the movie. Change the record and give it a rest!
    I saw it in the theatre and enjoyed it. Then I started reading all these negative reviews from critics and writers whose opinions on films I generally respect. I watched it again on Netflix and loved it more so I bought the Blu-ray.
    Anyone is welcome to dislike the movie but the constant nagging is just getting old. Move on. I think it’s great and I’m going to enjoy watching it many more time but this is the last time I’ll mention it publicly unless anyone asks. And if anyone asks I’m not going to be one of these sheepish apologists who seems almost embarrassed to like it, parroting comments about supposed plot holes and the quality of the screenplay.
    If you like Prometheus say it loud and proud! “PROMETHEUS IS A GREAT F’IN MOVIE!”

    …I’m glad Denis Villeneuve directed the new Blade Runner though. 😉

  5. Mike Dietrich

    I read the Phillip K Dick novel, do androids dream of electric sheep, and nowhere did the novel even suggest Deckard was an android. Scott changing the ending to try to say that is stupid. I always preferred the original version with Ford’s narration. It made it like a classic detective noir in a messed-up future, and was closer to the novel.

    • Bolo

      The film is very different from the novel (although lots of parts remain intact in the adaptation). So I would not say that just because something isn’t true of the novel it must therefore not be true of the film.

      However, as far as the whole Deckard-is-a-replicant theory, I think that’s just a fan theory that built up steam over the years and Ridley Scott thought it was cool and has tried to retcon it into the film. But it’s not the film he initially made.

      A movie about a replicant who is oblivious to his own nature and unknowingly persecutes his own kind is a fascinating idea though.

  6. Mike Dietrich

    And the novel ended with the 2 of them driving away, not knowing how long she had, just like the original ending. So Scott’s cut is just that, not the way it was written, but more of a lame idea he came up with later to try to make the movie deeper.

  7. theHDphantom

    To be honest, the Blade Runner 2049 teaser doesn’t really do anything for me. A little boring IMO. Hopefully the official trailer is more appealing.

    The trailer for Life looks kinda cool. Will definitely be checking that one out. Good cast too.

Leave a Reply to Bolo Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *