Slashdot Mirror


Blade Runner 2 Script Done, Harrison Ford Says "the Best Ever"

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."

4 of 299 comments (clear)

  1. Ridley, please stop by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, 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.

  2. Re:Why does this need a sequel? by The+Rizz · · Score: 4, 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.

  3. Re:Why does this need a sequel? by The+Rizz · · Score: 3, 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.)

  4. Re: Why does this need a sequel? by The+Rizz · · 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.