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."
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!"?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Actually, I would guess that judging movie scripts had a big effect on his fame, as he has managed to pick some some pretty good movies to be involved with. If he had, instead, chosen crappy movie scripts, I'm sure that no amount of good acting would help advance his fame. If he thought the sequel script was bad, I doubt he would waste his time on it, as he doesn't need the fame, and probably doesn't need the cash.
Fuck the haters
This is gold
lucm, indeed.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Ghost Writer, or Zombie Writer? :)
Replicant writer, of course!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.