Do you have adblock enabled?
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 15
    More: Silly, Ridley Scott, farms, Blade Runner, Alcon Entertainment, Deckard, publicity stunt  
•       •       •

1450 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 16 May 2014 at 3:29 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2014-05-16 12:31:40 AM  
5 votes:
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 10:38:56 AM  
1 votes:
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 10:35:05 AM  
1 votes:
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 09:30:18 AM  
1 votes:

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 08:18:35 AM  
1 votes:

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 07:31:44 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:55:15 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:53:19 AM  
1 votes:

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 06:44:37 AM  
1 votes:

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 05:23:43 AM  
1 votes:

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 04:15:24 AM  
1 votes:
This does not need to happen. At all. Ever.
2014-05-16 03:57:53 AM  
1 votes:
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 01:26:23 AM  
1 votes:
Someone get Terry Gilliam ready for Brazil 2: The Brazilling
2014-05-16 01:00:26 AM  
1 votes:
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 12:18:55 AM  
1 votes:
So clearly they have written a Blade Runner 2 with Deckart and didn't get Harrison Ford to sign first?
 
Displayed 15 of 15 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report