Blade Runner 2 Script Done, Harrison Ford Says "the Best Ever" 299
BarbaraHudson (3785311) writes "It's been more than 30 years, but finally the script for Blade Runner 2 is done. Original interview with Ridley Scott on MTV. Links for those who don't want to watch the interview. If you're worried that the upcoming Blade Runner sequel won't measure up to the 1982 sci-fi cult classic, rest assured. Harrison Ford apparently thinks the script is "the best thing (he's) ever read." Although Scott is debating whether or not he'll direct the sequel, it looks like Ford will most certainly be reprising his role as Rick Deckard."
Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks? (Score:3)
Having seen blade runner myself, surely I am capable of judging the finished product without having to take the word of someone who has achieved fame by some method other than judging movie scripts?
Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
According to a halfhearted internet search, he's worth 200+ million and married to Ally McBeal.
He could be easily mistaken for someone living the dream.
Re: (Score:2)
He did "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull". I wouldn't trust his motivations on this one.
But my question is whether they will keep Deckard as a Replicant. And whether he will know that he is or not. Or will they retcon something stupid in.
Blade Runner was a great movie. There is no need for a sequel. They could make another movie in that universe without needing to make
Re: (Score:2)
There's other problems with the idea of a sequel: the original was made in the early 1980s, and the visual style while still great does show some aging, especially if you look at the vehicles, which look basically like souped-up 80s cars. Modern cars have far more curves and complex surfaces thanks to modern technology (look at the headlights in particular). Finally, the beginning of the movie explicitly states it takes place in 2017 (IIRC), which is only a couple years away, and obviously the present doe
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't seem to have hurt Johnny Depp's career.
Re: (Score:3)
Sure, picking the right horse to begin with. But if you've made one kick ass movie and the studio is offering you $millions to do a sequel because you are that character and the audience is practically cheering you on before you even make a performance, don't you think he'd be a little bit interested in an easy gig whether or not the script sucks donkey balls? He's 72 and his glory days where in the 70s and 80s, I doubt he's looking for the next big thing just riding this one all the way home. Like the Roll
Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks? (Score:5, Funny)
I am capable of judging the finished product without having to take the word of someone who has achieved fame by some method other than judging movie scripts?
But why would Harrison Ford exaggerate the quality of the script? Sure, he has a stake in the financial success of the film, but nobody in Hollywood is going to prostitute their integrity just for the sake of money, and an occasional Oscar. I think you can just take his word for it.
Re: (Score:2)
"But why would Harrison Ford exaggerate the quality of the script?"
Same reason he exaggerated the script for the most recent Indiana Jones movie? Get those seats filled in theaters.
Re: (Score:2)
I am capable of judging the finished product without having to take the word of someone who has achieved fame by some method other than judging movie scripts?
But why would Harrison Ford exaggerate the quality of the script? Sure, he has a stake in the financial success of the film, but nobody in Hollywood is going to prostitute their integrity just for the sake of money, and an occasional Oscar. I think you can just take his word for it.
I wonder what integrity means for a famous movie actor. TV used to be a big no-no but now it's cool. Same with voice-over and video games. What's left that one should not do? Infomercials? Porn? GOP fundraisers?
Re: (Score:2)
What's left that one should not do?
Cowboys vrs. Aliens
Re: (Score:2)
What's left that one should not do?
Cowboys vrs. Aliens
Unfortunately, they did that, so what's left not to do would be Cowboys vs. Aliens vs. Predator.
Re: (Score:2)
It isn't "Voodoo Zombie Kung Fu Womens Prison" movies. Because that turned out to be completely awesome!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt04... [imdb.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Having seen blade runner myself, surely I am capable of judging the finished product without having to take the word of someone who has achieved fame by some method other than judging movie scripts?
I seriously doubt you've seen Bladerunner 2.
Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks? (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah, they should have asked bennet what he thinks... not some actor.
Re: (Score:2)
Ack! Sorry to reply to my own post, but forgot to mention.. Harrison Ford isn't even a frequent contributor.
Best Script Ever? (Score:2, Funny)
From a man who starred in such unwatchable turds as "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"and "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"?
Shoot, those movies were just plain BAD. And that is NOT the kind of recommendation I expect for a new movie.
And before you flame me: yes, Harrisson Ford was in a shitload of great movies. But his glory days are over, and have been over, for at least 10 years now.
Re:Best Script Ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fair enough, but did he ever say, "Crystal Skull is the best script I have ever read," or did he say, "This is the biggest paycheck I've ever seen!"?
Re: (Score:2)
Just a small nitpick...we don't know that he said this about Blade Runner 2 either, we only know the Ridley Scott is saying that Harrison said it.
Re: (Score:3)
I just watched Raiders of the Lost Ark with my kids and it was still fun. The special effects are dated, but that isn't the fault of the movie.
Re: (Score:2)
IMHO, the Crystal Skull was indeed really bad but the Last Crusade was ok.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's plausible it's the best script he's ever read.
After all, how often does he get to read the script before it gets rewritten multiple times to appeal to all the target demographics.
Re:Best Script Ever? (Score:5, Funny)
From a man who starred in such unwatchable turds as "Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade"and "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull"?
Why do I hear the voice of Troy McClure [wikipedia.org] from The Simpsons?
Re:Best Script Ever? (Score:5, Insightful)
You've got to be kidding. Last Crusade was a pretty good movie, definitely much better than Temple of Doom. Crystal Skull was, by most accounts, indeed crap.
Re: (Score:2)
It was funny as hell. For all the wrong reasons, sure, but still funny as hell. Basically it was an unintentional self-parody.
CGi revives Ford (Score:2)
Ridley, please stop (Score:4, Informative)
You best work is behind you. Trashing your successes in this way only makes you look bad. At least do something original, rather than Alien 1.1, etc.
I'm waiting for Buster Friendly (Score:2)
Harrison Ford apparently thinks the script is "the best thing (he's) ever read."
I'll wait for Buster Friendly to weigh in on the truth of that.
In the meantime, just go and do your task, even though you know it's wrong.
It is not a logistics problem (Score:2)
"Chill. You'll get your ice when the time is right."
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sequels? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
And fizzy rockets! Lots of fizzy rockets!!!
Read the Book (Score:3)
Deckard (Score:4, Insightful)
Ok, so Ford is going to be Deckard again.
He is quite a bit older now. Since Replicants live short lives, and Deckard is a Replicant, how is this going to be reconciled in the movie?
I don't see how. Not unless we stick Ford into one of Larry Niven's autodocs.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Not all replicants live short lives. Rachael did not have an expiration date. There is no way they are going to be able to make Harrison Ford look as young as he was. Even if the movie is bad, it will put to bed the notion Deckard is a replicant.
Re: (Score:2)
Rachel's lack of expiration date is only mentioned in the original theatrical release. Not in DC or Final Cut.
Point being: There's going to be canon issues with this movie, and most likely nobody who likes any version of the original is going to be totally happy with it, even if it is amazing.
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, he was... "It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?" ... and the orgami figure of a unicorn at his feet
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, so Ford is going to be Deckard again.
He is quite a bit older now. Since Replicants live short lives, and Deckard is a Replicant, how is this going to be reconciled in the movie?
You new to this sequel game aren't you? Google "Plot Device". The writers will insert any stupid mechanism that they feel like to keep the story going, regardless if it makes any sense or not. Yes you will hate it, but as long as the trailer has the words "Runner", "Ford", "Blade", and "Harrison" in it, the rest is unimportant in the making of a sequel.
Lots of possibilities (Score:2)
There is the problem of just how replicants 'escape', conspiracies abounding.
Deckard may be recreated every 4 years or so, with his last memories intact, an interesting way to use replicants.
Time for two or more Deckards? On than one planet?
Time for more Rachels? Or just the same one over and over?
Who's running Tyrell?
If the recycled Deckard gets older, that satisfies his own self-doubt about his nature. Cover for his replicantism. And he can always be left dead if he gets too close to the truth.
And he co
Yeah well (Score:2)
I am sure they'll find a way to butcher it. They've managed to butcher everything else from my childhood.
Prometheus. (Score:2)
Enough said.
I'll wait for the Netflix release.
Doubt it (Score:2)
In the sequel, the story will have to be much more powerful because the world is already introduced. From what I see in Wikipedia, it's not going to do it (which is not sur
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Doubt it (Score:5, Interesting)
It can never work the same because large numbers of the audience now understand very complex technical subjects. To make an equivalent SF film today that gives a technical audience the same sense of wonder would require extreme complexity that simply wouldn't sell outside the niche Slashdot-type crowd. So we're stuck with Jar Jar Binks for the foreseeable future. Get used to disappointment.
it will certainly be a flop (Score:2)
Especially since Harrison Ford praises the script. I wonder what his opinion was regarding the Indiana Jones IV script.
Ford thought he was reading a screenplay... (Score:5, Funny)
but it was really just a test designed to provoke an emotional response.
Ford had better step up his game (Score:2)
He looked tired and bored in the last Indy movie. He had better not do that again in the new Blade Runner movie.
He hated blade runner (Score:2)
So if he likes this one, it'll suck.
It's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?
Do we really need a stupid sequel to this?
Fuck what Harrison Ford says (Score:3)
I loved the shit out of that man as a kid, teenager and early adult.
Then I listened to several of his interviews, his passion for film is virtually "show me the money" when it came to Indy 4, I recall him pimping it, I also recall him saying "ahh they'll fix shit in editing / post" kind of stuff. He hates the Han Shot first stuff and he frankly, comes off as a phony to me.
Loved him in SW and the (only) 3 Indy movies made but the man isn't exactly into the universes of the films he creates.
Don't believe me? Go seek out some of the interviews in the last 15 years.
title suggestions (Score:3)
"BR2: Blade Roller"
A geriatric and now wheelchair-bound Rick Deckard is called back to "retire" a collection of aging replicants whose superhuman abilities are wreaking havoc on cruise ships, nursing homes, and bingo parlors everywhere.
Have Shane Carruth direct it, and it will be good. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ghost Writer, or Zombie Writer? :)
Re:Why does this need a sequel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Ghost Writer, or Zombie Writer? :)
Replicant writer, of course!
Re: (Score:3)
"I'm a replicant, you insensitive clod!" :-)
I've answered this before, in part to combat the rumors that pass for knowledge about anything and everything associated with people like me, but just as importantly to encourage others that they are not alone and needn't seek help because of fears of how others would react, under the "pay it forward" theory. And since you've been very polite about it, I won't dodge the question just with an "It's complicated" - even though it is.
Before I transitioned I was cert
Re:Why does this need a sequel? (Score:4)
Re:Why does this need a sequel? (Score:5, Informative)
If it isn't based on the "Blade Runner 2" novel, I'll give it a shot. The BR2 novel was one of the worst written messes I've ever seen - it basically tried to be a sequel to both the book and the movie, including all concepts and characters, even when they explicitly contradict each other (including having characters who were renamed for the movie appear as two different characters, regardless of it causing their plotlines to become utter nonsense).
As long as they got a decent writer, and they don't try to force the Deckard = Replicant nonsense in there, I'll be happy.
Re: (Score:3)
Deckard was a replicant. Ridley Scott himself said so, and it's fairly obvious from the movie too. At the end, Gaff leaves one of his origami creations at Deckard's apartment--a unicorn. Deckard had dreams about unicorns. This was a message from Gaff to Deckard that he knew what he was.
Re:Why does this need a sequel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Deckard was not a replicant, according to both PKD and the screenwriter.
The origami unicorn is symbolism for Rachel (both in the dream, and in Gaff's origami message).
Additionally, if Deckard were a replicant, it ruins several layers of meaning in the story, causes other parts of the story to become nonsense, and overall leaves other bits of symbolism falling flat as they only work well if Deckard is human.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought Gaff leaving the last unicorn behind was a message to Deckard that he (Gaff) knew what was going on, had been sent to terminate the skin job (Rachel), but for old time's sake was going to look the other way, for once.
If Deckard was a replicant as well, Gaff would have just terminated the two of them.
My vote is Deckard is human, or at least not a replicant.
Re:Why does this need a sequel? (Score:5, Insightful)
One question - please take into account that I am not suggesting with this question that I believe Deckard is a replicant, athough it may sound like it.
Why does everyone who drags out the whole 'The screenwriter and Harrison Ford deny it and Ridley didn't start saying it until later' argument ignore the fact that in the actual shooting script and at least some versions of the screenplay Deckard was clearly and specifically a replicant? There were lines about it in the script. Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott actually fought about it during filming...all of this is documented. Also it is an argument that presents itself as ignorant of the fact that there were 3 screenwriters who worked on it at different times. Regardless of whether Deckard is intended to be a replicant or not, this particular argument is ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst.
This argument of Deckard's humanity having a definitive answer is tired and pointless...the reason the film is as good as it is is in part due to the ambiguity of this very question. DADoES and Blade Runner both explore the concept of an android that does not in fact know it is an android quite thoroughly, which is what makes this particular ambiguity important to the film. "Questions are interesting, answers are boring."
I would much rather talk about what is uniquely beautiful about the film IF Deckard is human, and then talk about how that changes IF Deckard is a replicant and what that means in order to actually examine the real beauty of the film as a work of art...rather than a bunch of chest beating neanderthalic yelling about who's got the better source for their argument and thumping about how they're right and the other group is dumb and somehow ruining the movie by having a favored opinion.
Watching people have this argument is like sitting in an audience during a performance of Waiting for Godot and having no-one around you understand why it's a comedy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm stunned people don't get this: what makes the film good is the ambiguity. If it were certainly either way, the film would lack artistic merit, and just be a slow-paced effects movie with a good soundtrack.
Good art is as much about what the viewer thinks as what the artist thought.
Re: (Score:2)
If it were certainly either way, the film would lack artistic merit, and just be a slow-paced effects movie with a good soundtrack.
Blade Runner came out in 1982. Until the Director's Cut came out in 1992, there was no ambiguity about if Deckard was a replicant; the basic assumption was that he was not. For 10 years it was considered a great movie without any uncertainty about Deckard's humanity - not a "film lacking in artistic merit" as you assume.
Re: (Score:3)
In PKDs story, Deckard is human, end of story. A main point of the book is that the androids really are bad: Even though they can be vulnerable and afraid (Pris Stratton) make great art (Luba Luft), or even fall in love with each other (Roy and Irmgard Baty), they ultimately all are true psychopaths, without a hint of compassion or concern for other people except for their own benefit.
In the book, the idea of an android having false memories implanted and believing itself to be human is a ruse: The Rosen As
Re: Why does this need a sequel? (Score:4, Insightful)
Your interpretation is not an objective fact. There is quite a bit of symbolism is Deckard is a replicant. Deckard's nature is left ambiguous.
The Deckard = Replicant interpretation is not objective fact, either. As for the symbolism, there's both more symbolism leading to him being human, and nearly every piece I've seen that is supposed to point to him being a replicant can also be interpreted to have him be human.
As far as his nature being ambiguous, that'd be fine with me - a little ambiguity is a good thing for a movie.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That's my point, Deckard being a replicant is not nonsense just because you like the competing interpretation better, but neither is Deckard being human nonsense. Both interpretations are worthy of examination, and there's no reason why it has to be one or the other. I would also be interested to hear how you quantify and measure the amount of symbolism in a given interpretation.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Considering Harrison Ford is 30 years older, and will look so as Deckard, it becomes pretty obvious he's not a replicant.Unless you choose to believe the theatrical cut voice over that stated Rachel didn't have the pre-programmed 4 year lifespan. Which would imply Deckard may not have either. But that was removed, and is ambiguous in the Directors Cut and Final Cut. And it was the studio that chose to add the "happy ending" voice over against the wishes of damn near everyone else involved in the project.
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's obvious that Tyrell is a liar. It's inconceivable (heh) that Tyrell couldn't manufacture a replicant (can we PLEASE have the word replicant added to slashdot's dictionary? I mean, the film been around longer than /.) to live as long as he wished. Economics of 2019 aside, wouldn't it cost enormous amounts of money to design, build and test said replicants - I'd have thought customers (that's everyone who moves off-world) would want something to last longer than 4 years.
The four-year lifespan is
Re: (Score:2)
can we PLEASE have the word replicant added to slashdot's dictionary?
Errr, slashdot doesn't have a dictionary. Your browser does. Right-click the highlighted word, "add to dictionary". Bam! Done.
Re: (Score:2)
"Deckard being a replicant is not nonsense just because you like the competing interpretation better, but neither is Deckard being human nonsense. Both interpretations are worthy of examination, and there's no reason why it has to be one or the other."
How long does a replicant survive?
How long did Harry Bryant know him?
I think this resolves the question.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
He could very well still be a replicant despite being beaten by other replicants. There could be a trade off between strength and intelligence or strength and longevity or any number of other trade offs for strength. We know that different replicants are given different traits and characteristics to optimize them for their intended "application". Every replicant Deckard goes up against in Blade Runner is optimized for some physical characteristic (battle, manual labor, sexual gratification, etc.) whereas De
Re: Why does this need a sequel? (Score:5, Informative)
Besides, his eyes are shown to display the same refractive property (the red glow) as all the other replicants including the owl in Tyrell's office.
That was an unintentional trick of the lightning. In the original script (and even the original filmed scene) the owl was not supposed to be a replicant. Rachel's line about the owl being real/fake was changed in editing as they decided that instead of it being real (and thus showing Tyrell's wealth) they wanted it to be fake (and thus show Tyrell's talent). Rachel's line that it is fake was overdubbed after the scene was filmed - you can even lip-read her original line where she says it's not fake.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yup, if all replicants had a red glow to their eyes, then why the pain in ass psych eval to determine if someone is a replicant. It would be much easier to look for the red glow, wouldn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't prove anything. Rachel is the "latest and greatest", but how does she do in fights? We don't know, because she never gets in a fight in the movie, or does anything at all where her physical abilities are tested.
It's entirely possible that Deckard (and maybe Rachel too) is a different version which was designed to have human-like abilities, so that he would pass more easily as human; it's also likely they have a longer lifespan as a result: Tyrell told Roy that he was a "candle that burns twic
Re: (Score:2)
Not per se, but she does make short work of Leon when it's obvious that he's going to kill Deckard.
Re: Why does this need a sequel? (Score:5, Insightful)
Deckard, then, is programmed to believe he's human, so he'll work that much harder to bring down the other replicants. Making him fear for his life even helps him prevail against the extra-deadly Roy Batty. Wouldn't you agree that this makes for a more interesting story? Otherwise, it's just an action film in which the good guy wins, but he doesn't quite get the girl.
No, this makes for a much less interesting story that is just an action movie. The more interesting story is the one where an ex-cop who believes his job is tantamount to legalized murder is begrudgingly bullied back into the job after thinking he was out. Throughout completing said job, he believes more and more that the replicants are, emotionally, just as human as everyone else. By the end he has as much empathy for the replicants as he does for actual humans. It is this theme of blurring the lines between human and non-human through the eyes of a human that is central to the story. Making Deckard a replicant nullifies this, as a replicant having such empathy for other replicants, or humans for other humans, is considered normal. It is the crossing of lines - Deckard's desire to save Rachel, as well as Batty's final act of saving Deckard - both human and non-human showing compassion for the other, that gives the film's ending such power. Making it just about replicants only giving a shit about other replicants ruins that message.
Besides which, although Deckard was originally written as human, Ridley Scott considers him to be a replicant.
Ridley Scott was the director, and only the director. The writers - the ones who actually wrote the script - said he's not, and writers trump directors and actors when figuring out the intent and messages every time.
So either Deckard was a replicant, which is pretty cool, or all the hints that Deckard was a replicant were just red herrings
So, Deckard was a replicant, which is pretty lame, and all the deep philosophical meanings of humanity vs. inhumanity, and the lines of such blurring, were just red herrings?
Simply put, nearly every single bit of "proof" that Deckard is a replicant I've seen is something that either has symbolic use in the Frankenstein-esque story that BR is (which requires Deckard to be human to work), or is something that is being taken out of context by recent viewers compared to what it would have meant in the early 80s when BR was filmed.
Re: (Score:3)
Honestly, I think most people miss the point entirely. It does not matter if Deckard is human or replicant. You are supposed to judge him by his actions and feelings. By all accounts, he is supremely human in nature even if he is actually a replicant.
In summary, he or it, thinks, feels, and cares. Are these not the things that matter? It is a story of racism but without the obvious cues like skin color.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd also rebut your assertion that Deckard being human makes for a more interesting story by saying that Deckard being a replicant makes for a more interesting story. That's really just a subjective perception.
True. "More interesting story" is purely subjective. I mostly only said it to rebut the previous poster's opinion that having Deckard as a replicant was the more interesting story.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The unicorn. It's a fantasy in more ways than one.
"You've done a mans work." makes more sense if he's not a man.
"She won't live, but then again who does?" makes sense if Gaaf's job is to oversee replicant officers with short life spans.
The only humans left on Earth are either poor, criminals, crippled or old. Deckard is not.
Rachel could be Priss's sister. Deckard could be Holden's brother.
Deckard has the same kind of old picture collection as Leon.
Deckard plays the piano like Rachel does. Strange for a hard
Re:Why does this need a sequel? (Score:4, Informative)
The unicorn. It's a fantasy in more ways than one.
The unicorn is a man-made creature of great beauty. Both times it's used in the movie it is used in proximity to Rachel. The unicorn is obviously a symbol for Rachel.
Additionally, this leads to the other problem with Gaff's unicorn being proof that he "knows Deckard's dreams" - every other time Gaff does origami (or similar) in the movie, it is symbolic of something going on in the scene - why would only this one instance in the movie be non-symbolic when the other times they so clearly were?
"You've done a mans work." makes more sense if he's not a man.
It's also a phrase that was used in the 70s/80s that meant about the same as "a good day's work".
"She won't live, but then again who does?" makes sense if Gaaf's job is to oversee replicant officers with short life spans.
Or, it makes sense when you're saying that nobody lives forever - that it doesn't matter if they'll only be together for a short time, because they wouldn't be together forever, anyway.
The only humans left on Earth are either poor, criminals, crippled or old. Deckard is not.
Where, exactly, do you get this? There are tons of people in the crowd scenes that are not crippled or old. There is no indication that everyone else (or even most of them) are poor or criminals. Additionally, Deckard was gainfully employed on Earth for years, and is living in retirement - going off-world would only make sense if he needed a new job. Additionally, the audio from the blimps' ads - "a new life in the off-world colonies" - marks those ads as targeting the poor.
Rachel could be Priss's sister. Deckard could be Holden's brother.
This is complete nonsense - Pris was made years ago for off-world use. Rachel is a recent creation to serve as a test subject / surrogate daughter. As far as Deckard and Holden, there is nothing to point to them being brothers.
Side note: Holden is viewed as definitely human in the movie, as if he were a replicant they would never have spent so much effort keeping him alive after he was shot. This points to theories of all the Blade Runners being replicants as being false.
Deckard has the same kind of old picture collection as Leon.
Nope. Leon's collection is of a small amount of pictures he took himself, of him and his friends. Deckard's collection appears to be a large amount of old family photos - none of which he himself appears in. (Even Rachel's photo was supposed to be of herself.)
Deckard plays the piano like Rachel does. Strange for a hard nosed police detective.
Two major problems with this supporting your position:
1) IRL a significant portion of the population plays piano, across all jobs and demographics, so it's not really strange.
2) What would be strange is to add piano playing ability to a set of memories you're crafting for the perfect hard-nosed police detective (unlike if you're doing it for, say, someone's niece). This points to Deckard having a normal human upbringing rather than being a replicant programmed to be a hunter/killer.
Deckard seems to be one step ahead of everyone. I think he has suspected he's a replicant for some time.
Then why would he be so shocked and surprised about Rachel's implanted memories? Also, the "for some time" contradicts with the reasoning for Deckard to be a replicant: Why would they program him and release him into society for years before they need him? They'd program him and use him right away, and not as an ex-Blade Runner, but as a currently active one. He couldn't have been active and quit before they reactivated him, either - if he were a replicant, they'd have killed him when he quit.
Deckard is not a combat unit like Batty but he has the same outlook on life. No sense of humor.
He's a jaded detective who decided that his line of work was basically murder - that doesn't lead to a sense of humor, either. (Also, Batty does have a sense of humor - you see several instances of it throughout the film.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or, and I'm only saying this as a possibility - I still think Deckard was human - Deckard isn't the real Deckard. The real one is dead. The best blade runner is dead, with Holden being merely "good" (Deckard's own description) and Gaff being, well, whatever Gaff is. And they need the best, this situation being "the worst one yet" (Bryant's words); they need "the old blade runner".
So they make Deckard and implant him with the original's memories. For all intents and purposes, he *is* Deckard, with all his ab
Re: (Score:2)
Since you mention it I'd like to ask a question about the pictures in the movie. I saw the movie several times but could never figure out what is seen on the picture is actually zooms on, the one with the room and (?) mirror. I'm sure it's on some FAQ somewhere but never dug into that.
Re: (Score:2)
Ridley Scott said so. It's his movie
Any artist knows that art is part creation and part interpretation. Ridley Scott could make a movie with 60,000 frames of a solid color that he calls blue. But if everyone who watches the movie (pity them) says the 60,000 frames are all solid orange, then Scott most concede. The viewer gets the final say since they perform the interpretation. If the artist intended for a different interpretation, they should make their piece more communicative. Directors/Writers: Please do not use this as an excuse to
Re: (Score:2)
Why does it hurt you so bad that Deckard is replicant?
Because it makes it a worse movie if he is. Why does it hurt you so bad if Deckard isn't?
He's a replicant! Not only some details of the movie makes more sense with Deckard being a replicant,
Very few make more sense, and far, far more make less sense. Add onto that fact that the story is intended as a Frankenstein scenario and it makes even less.
but Ridley Scott said so. It's his movie, so the fact is there's nothing to discuss!
It is not "his movie". Ridley Scott did not write the script. Writers' intent is much more important than director's intent. Every single writer on the project says Deckard is not a replicant. So, in your own words, "it's [their] movie, so the fact is there's nothi
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you say he's a replicant to your friends in real life, but say that he's not on the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Dreams... not exactly objective evidence.
I think Gaff being the replicant would be a far more interesting twist.
Re: (Score:3)
"Deckard was a replicant."
In fact, Deckard neither was a replicant nor a human: he was a Schordinger factoid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That scene was not in the original version. I've only seen the one you have and talked to older people who argue with me on that point until I figured out that was in the "director's cut" versions [...] The voice overs by Harrison Ford were also not in the original as well.
Just to clarify: The original theatrical release had the voice-overs and the origami unicorn at the end (as well as a tacked-on "happy ending" narration over footage from The Shining). Deckard's dream with the unicorn was added in the first Director's Cut version.
Re: (Score:3)
actually the happy ending flyovers were footage that was unused from The Shining, Kubrick let Scott have it on condition that he not use any of what was actually used in The Shining - for the simple reason that Tyler mounts were damned expensive to rent in 1980 and there was a cabinet full of film.
Re: (Score:2)
If it isn't based on the "Blade Runner 2" novel, I'll give it a shot. The BR2 novel was one of the worst written messes I've ever seen
Wait till you read Blade Runner 3!
Spoiler Alerts for Blade Runner 2:
Rick Deckard had left his career as a blade runner and the gritty, neon-lit labyrinth of L.A. behind, going to the emigrant colony of Mars to live incognito with Sarah Tyrell. But when a movie about Deckard's life begins shooting, old demons start to surface. The most bizarre and mysterious is a talking briefcase--the voice belonging to Deckard's most feared adversary. The briefcase tells Deckard that he's the key to a replicant revolution back on Earth. Deckard must deliver the briefcase--the secret contents--to the replicants of the outer colonies before he is tracked down and killed. Is the briefcase lying? Who is really after Deckard? And who is the little girl who claims her name is Rachael? Once again Deckard is on the run from a sinister force determined to destroy him--and already closing in.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does any movie 'need' to be made?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ridley Scott is one of my favourite directors and aliens is one of the best movies ever made
Thats nice but Ridley Scott didn't make Aliens.
Re:It's so much easier to criticise... (Score:4, Insightful)
Fuck the haters
This is gold
Re: (Score:2)
He was pretty good in Knight Rider and in The Karate Kid.