If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Onion AV Club)   Ridley Scott and producers of Blade Runner 2 publicly call out Harrison Ford to star in their movie, lest it be lost in time like tears in rain   (avclub.com) divider line 100
    More: Silly, Ridley Scott, farms, Blade Runner, Alcon Entertainment, Deckard, publicity stunt  
•       •       •

1409 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 May 2014 at 3:29 AM (13 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-16 12:10:38 AM
fta Ford said recently he was "curious and excited" about doing another Blade Runner,

This will either be epically wonderful, or a craptastic suckhole. I vote for beautiful and amazing.
 
2014-05-16 12:18:55 AM
So clearly they have written a Blade Runner 2 with Deckart and didn't get Harrison Ford to sign first?
 
2014-05-16 12:31:40 AM
Please, please, PLEASE, don't make a Blade Runner 2. It is one of my favourite movies ever and I can only see you screwing it up. Not everything needs to be a "franchise". Some movies stand on their own just fine as is. There's fan fiction that continues the story for people who want more. Even published novels.

Why not just make new movies that tell new stories with new characters. Enough with the prequels and sequels.
 
2014-05-16 12:34:46 AM

Ghastly: Please, please, PLEASE, don't make a Blade Runner 2. It is one of my favourite movies ever and I can only see you screwing it up. Not everything needs to be a "franchise". Some movies stand on their own just fine as is. There's fan fiction that continues the story for people who want more. Even published novels.

Why not just make new movies that tell new stories with new characters. Enough with the prequels and sequels.


I think it's been long evident that the studios as they are today won't finance anything that isn't a proven seller

/thus the endless reboots, rehashes, and regurgitations
 
2014-05-16 12:55:41 AM
Is this to be based on the Derek Jeter novel?
 
2014-05-16 12:55:58 AM
I thought Dekert was a replicant. How can he still be alive and old?
 
2014-05-16 01:00:26 AM
Blade Runner is one of the worst ideas for a franchise or even a sequel ever. It's a very self-contained movie (whichever version you watch).

Heck come to think of it, there's already a Blade Runner franchise with the one movie alone.

img2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2014-05-16 01:22:00 AM

sithon: I thought Dekert was a replicant. How can he still be alive and old?


My thought exactly

/must be a replican
 
2014-05-16 01:26:23 AM
Someone get Terry Gilliam ready for Brazil 2: The Brazilling
 
2014-05-16 01:50:45 AM
Has anyone paid attention to Harrison Ford lately? Especially his interviews? Sorry, but that man is going to be having his diapers changed in the not too distant future.
Link
 
2014-05-16 02:16:25 AM
nonsense. deckard was a replicant.
 
2014-05-16 02:23:45 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I think it's been long evident that the studios as they are today won't finance anything that isn't a proven seller


The irony of that, of course, is Blade Runner was considered a huge box office disappointment at the time.
 
2014-05-16 02:52:18 AM

Ghastly: Please, please, PLEASE, don't make a Blade Runner 2. It is one of my favourite movies ever and I can only see you screwing it up. Not everything needs to be a "franchise". Some movies stand on their own just fine as is. There's fan fiction that continues the story for people who want more. Even published novels.

Why not just make new movies that tell new stories with new characters. Enough with the prequels and sequels.


I agree 100% with Ghastly.

BUT
Scott has done some good and great movies.

Imagine what they could do today?
Maybe we will be surprised.

/FFS please dont do this!!
 
2014-05-16 03:05:23 AM

sithon: I thought Dekert was a replicant. How can he still be alive and old?


He got stuck in a refrigerator.
 
2014-05-16 03:35:12 AM
So, set in a Tyrell Corporation retirement center?
 
2014-05-16 03:36:02 AM
This can only end badly.

/Very, very badly.
 
2014-05-16 03:39:01 AM
No Harrison Ford, he's too old. Offer the role to Tom Hardy instead. Or James McAvoy. Even Ben Foster.
 
2014-05-16 03:44:56 AM
If Ridley Scott doesn't make it, who cares if Harrison Ford is in it. :/
 
2014-05-16 03:45:06 AM
It can't end well for the simple reason that Blade Runner was a box office disaster because it was exactly the opposite of an early 80s blockbuster. It was grim and moody and dark and the version they showed 80s audiences isn't even close to the movie most people these days see anyway.

So how do you market Blade Runner 2 for Summer 2017? Moody, grim, metaphorical and slow? Yeah that's what they'll go for, I'm sure.
 
2014-05-16 03:45:45 AM

spawn73: If Ridley Scott doesn't make it, who cares if Harrison Ford is in it. :/


Oh Ridley Scott is attached and can't wait. He'll put off Prometheus 2 for this one, I'm sure.
 
2014-05-16 03:46:05 AM
The sequel will be 2 hours of an Edward James Olmos origami demo.
 
2014-05-16 03:47:59 AM

Ghastly: Please, please, PLEASE, don't make a Blade Runner 2. It is one of my favourite movies ever and I can only see you screwing it up. Not everything needs to be a "franchise". Some movies stand on their own just fine as is. There's fan fiction that continues the story for people who want more. Even published novels.

Why not just make new movies that tell new stories with new characters. Enough with the prequels and sequels.


This, this this, this!.a thousand times, THIS!

sithon: I thought Dekert was a replicant. How can he still be alive and old?


Deckard is NOT a replicant.  This has been the subject of many an internet argument before, but I have PROVEN that he is not a replicant in many other threads.

Deck-not-a-rep.
 
2014-05-16 03:54:48 AM

Sinbox: This can only end badly.

/Very, very badly.


You are wrong Sir. It canwill start badly, get worse, coast for a little bit and THEN end badly.

/Urge to kill Hollywood rising.
 
2014-05-16 03:57:53 AM
A sequel to Blade Runner is such a terrible idea, I believe they're actually going to go through with it.  It's the perfect one-off movie, so why not mess it up with a sequel that will un-do so much of what's good about it?
 
2014-05-16 03:59:52 AM

Notabunny: fta Ford said recently he was "curious and excited" about doing another Blade Runner,

This will either be epically wonderful, or a craptastic suckhole. I vote for beautiful and amazing.


I was as hopeful for Prometheus, now my trust is broken.
 
2014-05-16 04:02:41 AM
The only reason we all remember Blade Runner today was because it was a really well done intelligent sci-fi flick that was released right when Americans were discovering the wonders of VHS and watching actual Hollywood movies at home. The movie was a box office disaster after all, but in a world where cheap producers were learning that a cool videotape movie cover was WAY more important than the actual movie, a generation flocked to Blade Runner like starving children.

But it failed at the box office the first time, and I can't see a successor that lives up to its name doing much better.
 
2014-05-16 04:02:52 AM

gfid: Deckard is NOT a replicant.  This has been the subject of many an internet argument before, but I have PROVEN that he is not a replicant in many other threads.


In the original release, there's no hint he's a replicant.  In the DC, there are lots of hints and he most definitely is one.  And IMO that's what makes his character and this story so great.

filmgrab.files.wordpress.com

Don't make me come over there.
 
2014-05-16 04:05:23 AM

namatad: BUT
Scott has done some good and great movies.


He has also done some very bad ones.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Ridley Scott fan.  But there's no denying his output is very uneven, and you can never really tell from movie to movie what you're going to get, no matter how bad or good it looks at the outset.  His best makes him a great director, but his worst seriously drags down his resume.
 
2014-05-16 04:10:50 AM

Therion: Is this to be based on the Derek Jeter novel?


Those novels were a home run.


/or an error, take your pick
 
2014-05-16 04:12:10 AM
namatad:

BUT
Scott has done some good and great movies.



Recently?
 
2014-05-16 04:14:16 AM
I want more money, farker.
 
2014-05-16 04:15:24 AM
This does not need to happen. At all. Ever.
 
mhd
2014-05-16 04:55:49 AM

Confabulat: It's a very self-contained movie (whichever version you watch).


But the universe is pretty great. Given todays technology and budgets, it might make for a great TV show.

/And you really save money, considering that all you need to light the set is a single 40W bulb
 
2014-05-16 04:59:31 AM

mhd: And you really save money, considering that all you need to light the set is a single 40W bulb


So four grips then?
 
2014-05-16 05:23:43 AM

Archie Goodwin: Urge to kill Hollywood rising.


Just don't aim for the brains. They quit long ago.


/no, seriously. When's the last time a sequel separated by decades from its progenitor turned out to be anything worthwhile?

Remember The Two Jakes? No? I rest my case.
 
2014-05-16 05:36:29 AM

karmachameleon: namatad: BUT
Scott has done some good and great movies.

He has also done some very bad ones.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Ridley Scott fan.  But there's no denying his output is very uneven, and you can never really tell from movie to movie what you're going to get, no matter how bad or good it looks at the outset.  His best makes him a great director, but his worst seriously drags down his resume.


He's a hack. And I use that term in the most affectionate way. He was hired to do "Alien" because they knew he had a reputation as a commercial director who could keep costs down. I think he's managed to surround himself with talented people. Whether that's luck or skill I don't know.
 
2014-05-16 06:01:29 AM
I watched it for the first time last weekend. It must not have aged well.

/yes, the director's cut
 
2014-05-16 06:28:37 AM

fusillade762: karmachameleon: namatad: BUT
Scott has done some good and great movies.

He has also done some very bad ones.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big Ridley Scott fan.  But there's no denying his output is very uneven, and you can never really tell from movie to movie what you're going to get, no matter how bad or good it looks at the outset.  His best makes him a great director, but his worst seriously drags down his resume.

He's a hack. And I use that term in the most affectionate way. He was hired to do "Alien" because they knew he had a reputation as a commercial director who could keep costs down. I think he's managed to surround himself with talented people. Whether that's luck or skill I don't know.


He's not great with character and narrative.  He's terrific at visuals and cinematography.  I know what you mean; sometimes it seems like the pieces either fall together in a really special way, or else it just doesn't work at all.  There's not much in-between with him.
 
2014-05-16 06:30:41 AM
Not a replicant in the book, folks...so don't go all Peter Jackson witb Androids 2.
 
2014-05-16 06:30:49 AM
Hopefully they can get Damon Lindelof on the project to give it the treatment it deserves.
 
2014-05-16 06:34:52 AM

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I think it's been long evident that the studios as they are today won't finance anything that isn't a proven seller


"Today"?  The Wizard of Oz movie you probably think of as "The Wizard of Oz" was something like the 30th movie adaptation of the book, and something like the 5th+ from the same studio company.

This isn't really a new thing.  We have about the same proportion of remakes/reboots/ripoffs to original films that we've had for most of the history of cinema.
 
2014-05-16 06:44:14 AM

fastfxr: Not a replicant in the book, folks...so don't go all Peter Jackson witb Androids 2.


IIRC, in the book, he had sex with Rachel, then immediately killed her.  (been a long time since I've read it)
 
2014-05-16 06:44:37 AM

karmachameleon: gfid: Deckard is NOT a replicant.  This has been the subject of many an internet argument before, but I have PROVEN that he is not a replicant in many other threads.

In the original release, there's no hint he's a replicant.  In the DC, there are lots of hints and he most definitely is one.  And IMO that's what makes his character and this story so great.

[filmgrab.files.wordpress.com image 850x350]

Don't make me come over there.


How does it make the movie great?  It's merely a parlor trick and something of a twist for "twist's sake."  If anything, it actually lessens the impact of the story.  Deckard, as a human, comes to the realization that the replicants have more desire and passion to live than real humans.  As a replicant, his journey is totally cheapened and the final moments between Deckard and Roy Batty mean nothing.
 
2014-05-16 06:47:50 AM

namatad: Ghastly: Please, please, PLEASE, don't make a Blade Runner 2. It is one of my favourite movies ever and I can only see you screwing it up. Not everything needs to be a "franchise". Some movies stand on their own just fine as is. There's fan fiction that continues the story for people who want more. Even published novels.

Why not just make new movies that tell new stories with new characters. Enough with the prequels and sequels.

I agree 100% with Ghastly.

BUT
Scott has done some good and great movies.

Imagine what they could do today?
Maybe we will be surprised.

/FFS please dont do this!!


Prometheus.
 
2014-05-16 06:53:19 AM

RockofAges: It doesn't matter if Deckard is a rep or not a rep (this debate raged for years and continues to rage) as long as he believes himself to be human, and as long as the Nexus 6 models perceive him to be human. The emotional core of the story is not compromised by Deckard being either / or, simply enough that he and others believe he is human. Otherwise, Roy Batty's save of Deckard at the end loses all symbolism.

In the book, Deckard is clearly human. In the movies, depending on which version you watch, it could go either way (leaning towards Deckard is a rep. in the DC and the FC).


How does the Director's Cut paint him to be a replicant? So he had a dream about a unicorn, big deal. I had a dream once I was fighting Nazi Zombies, that doesn't make me a replicant.
 
2014-05-16 06:55:15 AM

Alphax: fastfxr: Not a replicant in the book, folks...so don't go all Peter Jackson witb Androids 2.

IIRC, in the book, he had sex with Rachel, then immediately killed her.  (been a long time since I've read it)


She did go crazy because he wouldn't leave his wife and threw his goat off the roof.
 
2014-05-16 07:16:12 AM
I put this in the last BR thread - Rachel eventually dies of old age, Deckard pulls out her jawbone to get the serial number, sends it to Gaff, traces the real Rachel, finds her making and selling replicants illegally, tries to kill her and is faced by multiple replicants looking exactly like her, kills them all, sits down and waits to be arrested for murder - because he killed the human Rachel believing her to be a rep.
 
2014-05-16 07:21:13 AM

Jim_Callahan: This isn't really a new thing.


True.

Jim_Callahan: We have about the same proportion of remakes/reboots/ripoffs to original films that we've had for most of the history of cinema.


Untrue.
 
2014-05-16 07:31:44 AM

RockofAges: Ghastly: RockofAges: It doesn't matter if Deckard is a rep or not a rep (this debate raged for years and continues to rage) as long as he believes himself to be human, and as long as the Nexus 6 models perceive him to be human. The emotional core of the story is not compromised by Deckard being either / or, simply enough that he and others believe he is human. Otherwise, Roy Batty's save of Deckard at the end loses all symbolism.

In the book, Deckard is clearly human. In the movies, depending on which version you watch, it could go either way (leaning towards Deckard is a rep. in the DC and the FC).

How does the Director's Cut paint him to be a replicant? So he had a dream about a unicorn, big deal. I had a dream once I was fighting Nazi Zombies, that doesn't make me a replicant.

A few things. The unicorn dream is something that Gaff clearly knows about (and how would he? Deckard has never told anyone... This is the same "method" that Deckard himself used against Rachel when he described her own childhood memories back to her to prove her memory was implanted). That's why Gaff leaves the unicorn origami for Deckard, to tell him: "I know you are a replicant. I know you are having dreams about unicorns. I was here, too. [slight sinister overtone / or not?].


I just saw that as synchronicity. I've experienced thousands of seemingly meaningful coincidences in my lifetime. Doesn't make me a replicant.
 
2014-05-16 07:37:10 AM
I dig Harrison Ford, he brought to life some of my favorite characters, but get the guy who played Captain America to be Deckard. Or his replicant. Or whatever.
 
Displayed 50 of 100 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »





Report