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  
•       •       •

1419 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 May 2014 at 3:29 AM (27 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.
 
2014-05-16 07:39:05 AM  

verbaltoxin: 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.


Chris Evans?   Hmm... I could see that.
 
2014-05-16 07:40:24 AM  
I don't really see what there is to explore with a sequel. The original said what it had to say and didn't leave much room for further events. This comes off like a move borne of greed -  Blade Runner has become such a classic - for its story, tone and style - that the lure to bleed it for more cash cannot be ignored.
 
2014-05-16 07:46:52 AM  

ol' gormsby: 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.


She was making them in the bathtub, and selling them on ETSY.
 
2014-05-16 07:54:17 AM  
I usually understand the appeal of films even when I don't particularly like the material, but I don't get the fandom for Blade Runner. I don't think it's a bad film by any means, but the cult following for a film I thought was forgettable is lost on me.
 
2014-05-16 07:59:27 AM  
Ford might not be the main character.
 
2014-05-16 08:04:00 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.


Beautiful but craptastic is the correct answer. A sequel to Blade Runner is a worse idea than a prequel to Alien.
 
2014-05-16 08:08:01 AM  
CSB: I bought a sealed set of the briefcase special edition DVDs at Goodwill for $15.

Maybe they'll include Mercerism in this sequel.  I like the book better than the film.  But I still love the film.
 
2014-05-16 08:08:56 AM  

scumshine: Ford might not be the main character.


I'm hoping that this is the case, though I'm still not keen on a sequel.
 
2014-05-16 08:12:34 AM  

swahnhennessy: I don't really see what there is to explore with a sequel. The original said what it had to say and didn't leave much room for further events. This comes off like a move borne of greed -  Blade Runner has become such a classic - for its story, tone and style - that the lure to bleed it for more cash cannot be ignored.


Precisely.  Thread over.
 
2014-05-16 08:13:37 AM  

FeedTheCollapse: scumshine: Ford might not be the main character.

I'm hoping that this is the case, though I'm still not keen on a sequel.


He'll be the grizzled old has been that teaches the young hotshot how it's done.  And there will be a montage of the new kid getting ready for battle with the newest single from Metallica.
 
2014-05-16 08:16:40 AM  

Alphax: verbaltoxin: 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.

Chris Evans?   Hmm... I could see that.


Captain America 2 made me a fan of his. Best dumb movie I saw this year. I'd love to see Evans in something nuanced like Blade Runner.
 
2014-05-16 08:18:35 AM  

hammettman: 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.


What does it mean to be human?  Do you have to actually be a living human to be human?  Can humans be made?  What rights does a being who is not actually human but appears to be human in every conceivable way have?  Should they have the same rights humans do?

What is the nature of survival?  Are the murderous replicants "bad", or are they just trying to survive?  Is their behavior justified?  By building in a short life-span intentionally, do we "murder" them?  Are they justified in fighting back to try and survive?

Deckard confronts all of these questions and more during the course of the movie, as he comes to the gradual realization that not only has he fallen in love with one of them, but also that he is one of them himself.  The final scene is devastating as the truth is definitively revealed.  If you're watching the movie literally, you might be disappointed.  But "it's not what the movie is about, it's how it's about it" - the actual answer to Deckard's heritage is not as important as contemplating the questions the movie introduces.  The original theatrical version gave the audience a nice tidy little package at the end with every question answered and nothing left to discuss.   That was cheap and meaningless.  The DC has magnitudes more ambiguity and leaves the audience with things to discuss, and it perfectly suits the movie.
 
2014-05-16 08:36:07 AM  

stupiddream: FeedTheCollapse: scumshine: Ford might not be the main character.

I'm hoping that this is the case, though I'm still not keen on a sequel.

He'll be the grizzled old has been that teaches the young hotshot how it's done.  And there will be a montage of the new kid getting ready for battle with the newest single from Metallica.


still better than what we'll probably get.

Honestly, I'm not entirely against a Blade Runner sequel, but Prometheus really killed any faith I had that Ridley could be the one to keep the franchise in check.
 
2014-05-16 08:36:27 AM  

karmachameleon: hammettman: 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.

What does it mean to be human?  Do you have to actually be a living human to be human?  Can humans be made?  What rights does a being who is not actually human but appears to be human in every conceivable way have?  Should they have the same rights humans do?

What is the nature of survival?  Are the murderous replicants "bad", or are they just trying to survive?  Is their behavior justified?  By building in a short life-span intentionally, do we "murder" them?  Are they justified in fighting back to try and survive?

Deckard confronts all of these questions and more during the course of the movie, as he comes to the gradual realization that not only has he fallen in love with one of them, but also that he is one of them himself.  The final scene is devastating as the truth is definitively revealed.  If you're watching the movie literally, you might be disappointed.  But "it's not what the movie is about, it's how it's about it" - the actual answer to Deckard's heritage is not as important as contemplating the questions the movie introduces.  The original theatrical version gave the audience a nice tidy little p ...


Very well put.

Now, describe in single words, only the good things that come to mind....about your mother
 
2014-05-16 08:38:45 AM  

skinink: No Harrison Ford, he's too old. Offer the role to Tom Hardy instead. Or James McAvoy. Even Ben Foster.


Karl Urban, too obvious?

Yea, they shot that load with Almost Human.
 
2014-05-16 08:45:23 AM  
I wonder how they're gonna explain his flabby skin.
 
2014-05-16 08:50:56 AM  
I probably will watch the sequel, I don't know if Ridley can make a great watchable movie. Prometheus was visually stunning but seriously lacking everything else.
 
2014-05-16 09:02:10 AM  

Asa Phelps: nonsense. deckard was a replicant.


Deckard being a replicant makes the entire movie pointless. Which is one of the reasons I don't want a sequel, as Scott has been quoted as saying he thought Deckard was one.
 
2014-05-16 09:04:38 AM  

Jim_Callahan: "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.


Hell, the "Maltese Falcon" we all love was the 3rd filmed version, and the "Ben Hur" with Charlon Heston had already been filmed twice.
 
2014-05-16 09:07:00 AM  
And how many "director's cuts", "domestic cuts", "international cuts" and "extended editions" are they going to release of the sequel?
 
2014-05-16 09:16:13 AM  
Blade Runner has to be one of the most OVERRATED movies in history.
 
2014-05-16 09:30:18 AM  

puckrock2000: And how many "director's cuts", "domestic cuts", "international cuts" and "extended editions" are they going to release of the sequel?


A$ many a$ it take$.
 
2014-05-16 09:36:27 AM  
That was a great line. Little known fact: Rutger's runner up line ended with, "farts in the wind.". Scott preferred it but but all the audio was bad because of you could here the crew crying.
 
2014-05-16 09:38:54 AM  
I've never been able to make it through an entire sitting of Blade Runner. Sorry.
 
2014-05-16 09:40:13 AM  

Crewmannumber6: I've never been able to make it through an entire sitting of Blade Runner. Sorry.


Well we appreciate you stopping by to inform us! Take care and have a great day!
 
2014-05-16 09:40:31 AM  

Tyrone Slothrop: Deckard being a replicant makes the entire movie pointless.


No it doesn't.  It gives the movie great weight, weight that was missing in the tidy theatrical version with the dubious voice-over.

chewielouie: Blade Runner has to be one of the most OVERRATED movies in history.


If by "overrated" you mean "influential and important", you'd be right.
 
2014-05-16 09:41:55 AM  
I wouldn't mind seeing Idris Elba make an appearance in this movie. As a Blade Runner or a replicant, I think he could pull either off fairly easily.
 
2014-05-16 09:48:18 AM  

padraig: Jim_Callahan: "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.

Hell, the "Maltese Falcon" we all love was the 3rd filmed version, and the "Ben Hur" with Charlon Heston had already been filmed twice.


Fistful Of Dollars, Magnificent Seven, Scarface...
 
2014-05-16 09:56:55 AM  

Confabulat: So clearly they have written a Blade Runner 2 with Deckart and didn't get Harrison Ford to sign first?


It's o.k. , there is always  Shia LaBeouf to fill his shoes.
 
2014-05-16 10:05:28 AM  
They won't be able to duplicate Blade Runner in the current "big movie" world.  I guarantee you that if they try to make it today, it will be a CGI suckfest.
 
2014-05-16 10:22:02 AM  
if he's a replicant, he's at the end of his short life, how ever long that is, and also who's to say this is the first deckard

if he's human, then he's human and whatever else that implies, i assume that he'll be offworld
 
2014-05-16 10:23:19 AM  

gfid: karmachameleon: hammettman: 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.

What does it mean to be human?  Do you have to actually be a living human to be human?  Can humans be made?  What rights does a being who is not actually human but appears to be human in every conceivable way have?  Should they have the same rights humans do?

What is the nature of survival?  Are the murderous replicants "bad", or are they just trying to survive?  Is their behavior justified?  By building in a short life-span intentionally, do we "murder" them?  Are they justified in fighting back to try and survive?

Deckard confronts all of these questions and more during the course of the movie, as he comes to the gradual realization that not only has he fallen in love with one of them, but also that he is one of them himself.  The final scene is devastating as the truth is definitively revealed.  If you're watching the movie literally, you might be disappointed.  But "it's not what the movie is about, it's how it's about it" - the actual answer to Deckard's heritage is not as important as contemplating the questions the movie introduces.  The original theatrical version gave the audience a ni ...


You're in the desert and you come across a turtle....
 
2014-05-16 10:35:05 AM  
I don't see any way a sequel could possibly be good. The reason the first one's so good is because it was a strange amalgamation of things that had never been merged together before:

1) Part of a Phillip K. Dick book (with a title stolen from another, unrelated book called  The Blade Runners)
2) Film noir detective films
3) A strange, pan-Asian version of the future
4) Electronic sights and sounds
5) Heavy, philosophical ideas derived from Dick and other hard sci-fi of the era.

These were all shaping elements of the cyberpunk genre, which has evolved and taken on many other conventions that wouldn't fit Blade Runner's universe. So right away, a new film would either have to decide if it wanted to be more cyberpunk or if it wanted to stick to its original conventions, either of which would make the new film less likely to be enjoyable.

It's difficult to say if Ridley Scott understood what made the film work so well. He hasn't made a film half as good since (and no,  Gladiatordoesn't count -- it was a good film, but not nearly as enduring or influential, even if it was recognized by the Academy). He also now has 30 years of distance and hype separating him from the younger version of himself who made the original. (Prometheus already proved he's not capable of remaking Alien.)

Then, there's the fact that the original movie was made by hand with no CG. A new film would be likely to be almost entirely CG. Whereas the 1982 film required restraint because special effects required tricks and design, the new film could do anything Scott wanted. That rarely bodes well for science fiction films (as Star Wars prequels, Matrix sequels and others have all shown).
 
2014-05-16 10:38:56 AM  
Ridley Scott is full of shiat.

DECKARD WAS NOT A REPLICANT.

Write your own stories, Ridley - don't twist and fark up good stories written by other people.
 
2014-05-16 10:43:28 AM  

LZeitgeist: Ridley Scott is full of shiat.

DECKARD WAS NOT A REPLICANT.

Write your own stories, Ridley - don't twist and fark up good stories written by other people.



Have you read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" 

there's a few differences between the novel and the movie


and it's not just the replipets missing in the movie
 
2014-05-16 10:44:21 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-16 10:48:47 AM  

loonatic112358: LZeitgeist: Ridley Scott is full of shiat.

DECKARD WAS NOT A REPLICANT.

Write your own stories, Ridley - don't twist and fark up good stories written by other people.


Have you read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" 

there's a few differences between the novel and the movie


and it's not just the replipets missing in the movie


Yes, I have read it. That's how I know exactly what Phillip K. Dick wrote in the source material.
 
2014-05-16 10:51:13 AM  

stupiddream: FeedTheCollapse: scumshine: Ford might not be the main character.

I'm hoping that this is the case, though I'm still not keen on a sequel.

He'll be the grizzled old has been that teaches the young hotshot how it's done.  And there will be a montage of the new kid getting ready for battle with the newest single from Metallica.


Yeah....maybe pass on that awesome pistol.

i885.photobucket.com
 
2014-05-16 11:40:26 AM  
Meh, rather than prequels or sequels I am a fan of telling stories from different perspectives. Have the story take place at or around the same time the events of the first Bladerunner are occurring, but with a new set of characters with a whole different story and perspective. You can tie the two together with something as little as a cameo of Roy (Rutger Hauer) bumping into the new lead protagonist. This allows you a whole different artistic license to essentially depart from the original story as much as you want and you don't have to necessarily tie the two together, they simply exist in the same universe.
 
2014-05-16 12:30:15 PM  
It's really too bad Sean Young turned out to be batshiat insane. She was so gorgeous in Blade Runner, and I think she's probably the reason I've always had a thing for that uptight 50's composure and attire.

What? Quit looking at me like that. It's hot.
 
2014-05-16 01:55:22 PM  

Tyrone Slothrop
2014-05-16 09:02:10 AM

Asa Phelps: nonsense. deckard was a replicant.

Deckard being a replicant makes the entire movie pointless. Which is one of the reasons I don't want a sequel, as Scott has been quoted as saying he thought Deckard was one.

.. but only started making said claim once he found he could cash in on triple, quadruple, etc.. dipping the DVD market.
 
2014-05-16 01:58:51 PM  
Alphax
2014-05-16 07:39:05 AM

verbaltoxin: 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.

Chris Evans? Hmm... I could see that.


Hey guys, I'm available
www.liveforfilms.com
 
2014-05-16 03:41:40 PM  

verbaltoxin: I'd love to see Evans in something nuanced like Blade Runner.


I wouldn't call Snowpiercer "nuanced" but I was impressed by his work in that movie, as I watched the entire thing and never once realized he was the star until I looked on IMDB afterwards.
 
2014-05-16 05:29:01 PM  

RockofAges: You're being very willfully obtuse. If you were a police investigator charged with uncovering and tracking "skinjobs" who look and act exactly as a human does, and were aware of the prevalence of "implanted memories" within them, and you start to have "recurring dreams" which, despite you having never mentioned them to anyone, a fellow investigator "reveals" he knows your secret without tipping anyone else off -- yeah. That's more than just "synchronicity". I guess Rachel's memories being explicated by Deckard don't have any logical basis either, he's just speculating about her REM sleep... right?


I'm not being obtuse I just don't buy into the fan theory that Deckard is a replicant. 1) It ruins the movie. 2) It makes no sense.

Deckard knows Rachel's memories because Tyrell told her them. Deckard's dreams were not recurring. It was a one time weird dream of a unicorn. "You've done a man's job" is just a compliment and one that anyone who has worked a blue collar job has heard before.

Most of all if Deckard was a replicant then why the hell did he get his ass handed to him each and every time he went one-on-one with a replicant? "Oh they purposefully made him weaker than other replicants just because" doesn't cut it. If anything if you want a replicant that's function is to kill other replicants you'd make them stronger, not weaker.

It's a cute fan theory but it doesn't cut the mustard. The "clues" the fans allude to are simply there to reflect the parts of the source material where Deckard begins to wonder if he's a replicant too, but then discovers he's not.
 
2014-05-16 05:29:28 PM  

HST's Dead Carcass: This does not need to happen. At all. Ever.


This.
 
2014-05-16 05:31:52 PM  

swahnhennessy: I don't really see what there is to explore with a sequel. The original said what it had to say and didn't leave much room for further events. This comes off like a move borne of greed -  Blade Runner has become such a classic - for its story, tone and style - that the lure to bleed it for more cash cannot be ignored.


Casablanca II: The Casablanciest!
 
2014-05-17 12:33:53 AM  

Ghastly: It was a one time weird dream of a unicorn


But there is no reason to include those scenes WITHOUT drawing the conclusion he is a replicant. Otherwise they are nonsense filler.
 
2014-05-17 08:41:26 AM  

Confabulat: Ghastly: It was a one time weird dream of a unicorn

But there is no reason to include those scenes WITHOUT drawing the conclusion he is a replicant. Otherwise they are nonsense filler.


It was nonsense filler that's why it was originally left on the cutting room floor it was added in the director's cut as a "ha ha, watch me fark with people's minds".

IF they showed Deckard having the same dream over and over and over and over again you might have a point.

The point was Deckard learns that replicants and humans are really the same. With the Deckard is a replicant fan theory the point of the movie is Deckard learns that replicants and replicants are the same. Well duh!
 
2014-05-17 08:48:07 AM  

Ghastly: It was nonsense filler that's why it was originally left on the cutting room floor it was added in the director's cut as a "ha ha, watch me fark with people's minds".


Well how many people watch the original theatrical cut in 2014? It's pretty much the definitive version of the movie, and it's impossible to avoid that conclusion.

I'm not really pro- or con- either way, but the modern versions of Blade Runner pretty much indicate he's a replicant. I don't really know how to argue that away.
 
2014-05-17 09:50:38 AM  

Confabulat: Ghastly: It was nonsense filler that's why it was originally left on the cutting room floor it was added in the director's cut as a "ha ha, watch me fark with people's minds".

Well how many people watch the original theatrical cut in 2014? It's pretty much the definitive version of the movie, and it's impossible to avoid that conclusion.

I'm not really pro- or con- either way, but the modern versions of Blade Runner pretty much indicate he's a replicant. I don't really know how to argue that away.


I still don't see anything in the movie that proves he's a replicant and lots that prove he can't be a replicant. So I'll go with the interpretation that doesn't make the meaning of the movie completely pointless. if Deckard not being a Replicant was good enough for Phillip K. Dick then it's good enough for me.
 
Displayed 100 of 100 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report