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."

Comments

Why does this need a sequel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Did Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep have a sequel?

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[BarbaraHudson]

It does now. Phillip K, Dick - the gift that keeps on giving.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[nitehawk214]

Ghost Writer, or Zombie Writer? :)

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[The Rizz]

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:Why does this need a sequel?

[Grishnakh]

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?

[The Rizz]

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: Why does this need a sequel?

[Anonymous Coward]

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. Furthermore, we're talking about Blade Runner, not Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. Blade Runner isn't a direct adaptation of Philip K. Dick's novel.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[The Rizz]

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:Why does this need a sequel?

[Astrogoth]

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 nosed police detective.
Deckard seems to be one step ahead of everyone. I think he has suspected he's a replicant for some time.
Deckard is not a combat unit like Batty but he has the same outlook on life. No sense of humor.

Are any of these observations proof? No. But add them together and it's obvious to a blind man: He's a skin-job.

.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[Anonymous Coward]

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:Why does this need a sequel?

[Livius]

Dreams... not exactly objective evidence.

I think Gaff being the replicant would be a far more interesting twist.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[Anonymous Coward]

Deckard is NOT a replicant based on the simple fact that he gets his ass handed to him EVERY physical fight he has with a replicant. Especially when you consider all the people assume he would be the latest and greatest version of replicant like Rachael. As a side note, it also ruins the whole point of the movie if he was a replicant, but I won't get started on that.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[The Rizz]

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: Why does this need a sequel?

[The Grim Reefer]

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.

From Wikipedia:

Tyrell later tells Roy, a replicant, that the preset life-span is inherently dependent on Nexus-6 biology. Noting that "the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long", Tyrell explains that the reason Nexus-6 replicants do not live longer is not due to some sort of kill switch, but because they physically cannot -the result of the superhuman capabilities engineered into them. Roy suggests several means of extending his lifespan (demonstrating that he possesses at least equal knowledge to that of his creator about his physical construction), but Tyrell reveals that he already tried each of these suggestions, failing in every attempt.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[Anonymous Coward]

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 Deckard is a hunter. He would be designed to stalk his prey, not take them on head-to-head. Just before Roy kills Tyrell, he asks Tyrell to extend his life/fix him to which Tyrell responds that Roy was made a well as they could make him, adding, "The candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long, and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy."

I happen to think it enhanced the whole point of the movie if he's a replicant. If he's a replicant, that means he's basically required to hunt and kill his own kind because non-replicant humans refuse to perform such a morally repugnant act. So, to mask the moral repulsion of killing a sentient being created to be a slave, humans create yet more slaves to "retire" the ones that become a problem. I find that utterly heartbreaking.

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.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[Grishnakh]

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 twice as bright", meaning basically their greater physical abilities came at a cost: a short lifespan.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[turbidostato]

"Deckard was a replicant."

In fact, Deckard neither was a replicant nor a human: he was a Schordinger factoid.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[davester666]

Obviously they dream of doing two sheep at once.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[turbidostato]

"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:Why does this need a sequel?

[The Rizz]

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: Why does this need a sequel?

[The Rizz]

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:Why does this need a sequel?

[BarbaraHudson]

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?

[waltew]

Gaff was once the number one Blade Runner. When his body wasn't up to snuff any more, they copied his memories into Deckard who now became the number one Blade Runner around the block. With his new protégé, Gaff is now functioning merely as an overseer. Like Rachel, Deckard is also "special".

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[The Rizz]

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:Why does this need a sequel?

[Culture20]

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 boringly explain everything in your movies.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[The Rizz]

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 nothing to discuss!"

Why do you, emotionally, refuse this simple fact? You act like someone deeply religious who can't face the fact that his guru is just a scammer. Why?

I have reasoned proof behind my arguments. You have the word of one person involved in the movie, who is widely believed to have only said what he did to stir up controversy leading up to a re-release.
Who is acting like "someone deeply religious who can't face the fact that his guru is just a scammer" now?

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[avandesande]

Why does any movie 'need' to be made?

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[BarbaraHudson]

That's pretty much the way I remember it. I guess many of us will be rummaging around to dig out the dvd and watch it again - not that it will likely settle anything, same as people still argue about who shot first, vi vs emacs, init scripts vs systemd, etc.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[mrbester]

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 abilities, foibles, etc.. The ultimate triumph of Tyrell's art: not quite a clone, but a means of effectively living forever, or resurrecting the dead. Perhaps Tyrell wanted immortality and the Tyrell we see isn't the real one.

As such, Deckard has to be treated the same and bullied "back" into work, even though they know it isn't the real one.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[Wain13001]

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: Why does this need a sequel?

[dwywit]

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 engineered obsolescence, to keep buyers buying.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[Brad1138]

You need to watch the movie, "Dead and buried" you'll get why at the end.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[Brad1138]

It worked for the Blue Brothers...

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[TubeSteak]

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:Why does this need a sequel?

[vandelais]

Why do you say he's a replicant to your friends in real life, but say that he's not on the internet?

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[The Rizz]

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:Why does this need a sequel?

[dargaud]

Interesting post.

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:Why does this need a sequel?

[MillionthMonkey]

It becomes a much deeply recursive movie once you realize Eldon Tyrell was a replicant.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[NormalVisual]

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.

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?

[phantomfive]

I always figured having that ambiguity in there was kind of a way of pointing out that all of us are limited......even though our own years are longer than a replicant's, we were all replicated from our parents, and will die too soon. Roy's life is short, but Deckard's won't be much longer. The book is an attempt to make us look at our own mortality.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[lgw]

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:Why does this need a sequel?

[The Rizz]

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: Why does this need a sequel?

[FatLittleMonkey]

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: Why does this need a sequel?

[FatLittleMonkey]

Do you realise how many layers you're adding just to preserve a theory that both the author of the original story and writer of the damn screenplay said wasn't valid? Just give it up.

The analogy drawn between Deckard and the replicants was meant to show the dehumanisation of his job, his life, that he needed Rachel in order to become "human" again, not that he was a super-secret special replicant allowed to roam freely in violation of the very law enforced by the agency that is employing him.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[William Baric]

You didn't answer my question.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[ihtoit]

the 4 year lifespan is pretty comprehensively explained in the movie. The Nexus 6 (of which Rachel was NOT a member) was a combat model. Not expected to live very long anyway once deployed, it was engineered for raw brutality and physical strength. Rachel was like the civilian version of the Armalite - pretty much a trophy model. Not nearly as powerful as the military model, designed with polish and glitter rather than piss and vinegar.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[ihtoit]

1. the Nexus 6 is the only model referred to with a fixed lifespan. There is no allusion to any other model having such a limitation. This is down to, and I paraquote from the movie, the inevitability of the models developing a conscience.

2. Several years. Not specified, just implicated with the familiarity between them.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[ihtoit]

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: Why does this need a sequel?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

His interpretation of the symbols may not be objective fact, but the fact that Deckard was a replicant (in the movie not the book) is not arguable. Ridley Scott in the documentary "On the Edge of Blade Runner" specifically said, "[Deckard's] a replicant." Scott has also said that Deckard is a Nexus-6 model. Deckard may not have been a replicant in the book, but Harrison Ford wasn't in the book he was in the movie. Ridley Scott used PKD's book as source material but he can alter it as he sees fit. That means, for the movie Deckard's a replicant. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks since Scott's the director and his word goes. Scott did intentionally leave Deckard's humanity ambiguous in the movie, but he's since answered the question in the affirmative.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[David_Hart]

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.

I agree. In my mind the story only works if Deckard is human. The point was to show that the replicants had advanced to the point where the question of whether they were sentient and deserved the same rights as humans. One of the ways they showed this in the film was for a human/replicant emotional connection (i.e. love). replicant-to-replicant "love", in my mind, just wouldn't make sense given the context of the story. That being said, the movie itself does leave this possibility open and most just assume that he is human.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[drewsup]

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:Why does this need a sequel?

[ah.clem]

Did Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep have a sequel?

It's always nice when hack directors decide to "fix up" the writing of gifted authors, or decide that they know better their intent. "Bladerunner" bore no resemblance to "Do Androids..." other than to steal a few great ideas. Can you imagine what a clusterfuck Scott would make out of "Ubik"? It will eventually happen; PKD is just too good for some asshat "artiste'" not to adapt beyond all recognition, time after time. The only person I might trust to do something like Ubik correctly would be Joss Whedon; at least he seems to get the genre and have fun with it. IMO, Scott is just an egotistical fool. Too bad PKD had to sell out; he was just writing too far ahead of his time and like lots of brilliant artists, had a lot of personal baggage.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[dwywit]

D'oh! I shouldn't use a computer when I'm tired.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[William Baric]

Actually, I think Deckard being a replicant makes the movie a lot more interesting.

Basically, the movie start with a dark world and a typical "human:good / machines:bad" point of view. Then, we realize it's more complicated than that and our minds begins to open up. When at the end of the movie we realize that Deckard may also be a replicant, it's the final step toward opening up our minds. It forces us to think back at the movie and view characters beyond stereotypes. It makes the plot more intricate. More importantly, it leaves us with a strong feeling that there's more than meet the eyes.

Of course, I understand not everyone like intricate plots, I understand not everyone like to stir up their preconceived ideas, I understand some people prefer simple pop corn movies, but that's certainly not my case!

Anyway, beyond my personal taste with movies, I believe you are irrational. It is Ridley Scott's movie. No he did not write the script, but a script is just a tool used by the director. Once the script is written, the writer is out of the loop. The end result is at the mercy of the director who can do whatever he wants with the script. There are plenty examples of writers who were pissed because of directors creating a completely different movies than what they envisioned with their scripts.

You said it is widely believed Scott made that comment to stir up controversy? No it's not. Not only it is not "widely believed", but it certainly was not to stir up controversy, it was on the contrary to end discussions among fans and clear up things.

Firstly, let's be honest, it's not a "controversy" at all. I mean if Scott would have said that Deckard was human, like most people I wouldn't care much. I do think the story has more depth with Deckard being a replicant, but it's not like it will change my life or anything. I like to think about ambiguous ideas, it's a fun game, but when the author decide to clear up things, I believe it's completely ridiculous to contradict him.

Secondly, I remember an interview with Ford stating he had an argument with Scott saying it would be better for Deckard to be human so spectators could identify themselves with the character. From what I gathered, Scott wasn't sure about Deckard when shooting, he tried to leave his options open, it's only when making the cut he decided it would be better to make Deckard a replicant. So the idea that it was just to "stir up controversy" is simply ridiculous.

Anyway, my question was not about your "arguments" nor the movie. Deckard is a replicant, we now know it, end of story. My question is about you. I'm simply curious as to why it is so important for you for Deckard to be human. Why you are willing to even deny what the author of the movie is saying. Even if you prefer more stereotypical stories and so don't like the implication of Deckard being a replicant, it's just a movie! So why the passion? I just don't get it!

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[dwywit]

Pris wasn't a combat model - recall the briefing Bryant gave Deckard, where photos and specs of each of the escaped replicants was on the screen. There was a Nexus level, sub-type and a description - pleasure model, etc. Something like "Phys level A, Ment level B" etc.

The 4-year lifespan was deliberate to prevent them, as Bryant said, from developing their own emotional responses. Tyrell wasn't going to admit to Roy that his lifespan was deliberately limited - his attitude, right up to the point where Roy killed him, was paternalistic and he seriously underestimated Roy's response - Tyrell thought Roy would walk away with his tail between his legs, but Roy had by that late stage of his life, begun to develop emotions - and Tyrell bore the brunt of Roy's rage.

I agree about Rachel - she was special, probably designed to appeal to a high-class client, as opposed to being a standard pleasure model like Pris. Rachel was an experiment - it's all in Tyrell's speech to Deckard after the VK test on Rachel.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[Samantha Wright]

...Not having any particular stake in this argument, are we quite sure that's Tyrell's intended meaning, something so mundane? I think Tyrell is more taking about stuff like this:

I have seen things you people wouldn't believe Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like [small cough] tears in rain. Time to die

...i.e., Roy's greatness and accomplishment as a person. At that point, Tyrell wants to sooth Roy and make him accept his place by calling him amazing. Simply saying "well, that's the cost of bein' so darn strong" conflicts with his next line: "And you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy."

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[turbidostato]

"There is no allusion to any other model having such a limitation. This is down to, and I paraquote from the movie, the inevitability of the models developing a conscience."

A conscience like... hummm... Deckard?

Yes, Deckard's boss familiariy implies he has known him several years. And the script implies Deckard has been into his retirement some several years more. Several years + several years > 4, which is a no go for a conscient replicant.

And then, there's the meta-analisys of the script. It shows machines (replicants) becoming humans at the same time that humans become like machines. This is Deckard's paradigm, but he also represents the whole dehumanized society around him. It makes no sense if it becomes a story about machines hunting machines instead of a human that behaves like a machine hunting machines that in some aspects behave more humanly than himself.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[Vintermann]

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 Association claims it about Rachael, but actually she knows perfectly well that she's an android. At another point, the androids go to ridiculous lengths to fool Phil Resch, a somewhat cynical bounty hunter, that he is an android. But they fail.

Of course what a Hollywood director does in his film is his own business. But I'd like to see a dramatization that was more faithful, and went into the moral and religious aspects of the story.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[smacinn]

It was my impression they where testing eye dilation/movement in relation to responses in order to validate emotional response during questioning. One could also assume that in such a society, people would routinely have their failing parts replaced with replicant ones.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[Grishnakh]

She picks up a gun and shoots him in the head while he isn't paying attention. Anyone can do that.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[JasonGoatcher]

Yes, we know, you've always been a fan of Dick.

Statistically, it'd be more likely she turned herself into a lesbian, but you'd have to ask her to know for sure.

And I'm not claiming to speak for her.

And if she corrects me, I'll concede to her, I assume she'd be more likely to know.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[Culture20]

Your question wasn't posed to me.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[itsdapead]

Deckard was not a replicant, according to both PKD and the screenwriter.

I don't think PKD's opinion counts, since the film was so hugely different from the book, and missed out lots of plot points like the "mood organ", the social pressure to own an animal (or an electric fake), the robot disc jockey and the whole Mercerist religion (which made the VK test look suspiciously like a test of religious dogma). Deckard was human and his memories hadn't been implanted, but everything he remembered and felt had, one way or another, been an artifice.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[lgw]

When I first saw the movie, the intent was clear to me: "how would any of us know if we were actually replicants". That's the interesting part of the film! I assumed Deckard was human while watching the beginning, but the "happy ending" broke that assumption for me, with the line something like "but do any of us really know?"

Once "fridge logic" kicked in, I saw many hints:
* The police officers who tell Decker he's un-retired treat him like shit for no apparent reason.
* The police just assumed he could take down multiple combat replicants, which seems bizaare once you see what he's up against, if he's human.
* The scene in which he's testing Rachel and asks "does she know" - what an amazingly powerful scene that is if Tyrell is really testing Decker: does he know.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[lgw]

*Deckard - why the Hell do I keep typing Decker?

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[Noah Haders]

he wont be a replicant in the new movie. if he were a replicant he wouldn't age, and HF has aged...

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[The Rizz]

She picks up a gun and shoots him in the head while he isn't paying attention. Anyone can do that.

Someone who's never handled a gun in their life can just pick one up and easily hit a target that small from across the street, in bad lighting, in the rain?

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[BarbaraHudson]

"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 certain that I would end up a lesbian. The thought of being attracted to males was preposterous on the face of it. So you can imagine my shock when I was at supper with a bunch of friends and realized that my mind had wandered off into so-called forbidden territory. My first thought was "OMG it must be written all over my face!" My second thought was "Well, there's no way in hell that I'm going back, that's a death sentence. I'm going to see this through to the end, no matter what surprises are in store for me." And my third was "Gee, I guess I'm more of a conventional woman than I gave myself credit for. I can live with that."

The big "problem", if you will, is that some people will use that to re-interpret your history. "You must have always been secretly attracted to men blah blah blah." In cases like mine, where it's not true, it can lead to problems, such as one former friend who really over-reacted, possibly because he re-interpreted our friendship upon supposing I had always been attracted to men (he's not exactly gay-friendly). Such assumptions also cloud the facts, that in transsexuals, "sometimes it changes, sometimes it don't, it's okay either way, there's no way to know ahead of time so don't freak out if it happens."

I know m2f women who continued to be attracted to women, others who were gay who stayed attracted to men, and others who, like me, had their "WFT" moment. It's complicated, but that doesn't mean it's not worth it :-) Hope this answers at least some of the questions floating around.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[BarbaraHudson]

Ghost Writer, or Zombie Writer? :)

Replicant writer, of course!

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[BarbaraHudson]

Typo - should read "and needn't worry about seeking help because of fears of how others would react"

Proof that even replicants can make mistakes :-)

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[BarbaraHudson]

Because the last 'd' is almost silent? You're not the only one who heard it as "Decker."

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[Shirley Marquez]

Dick's work is notoriously difficult to film; most of the adaptations of his books and stories have not worked well. Ambiguity is key to Dick, and it's hard to capture in film which is a literal medium. The original film version of Total Recall is a good example of that problem; though it is a fun film on many levels, it fails to leave the audience with the existential question of whether the end point of the film is real or yet another layer of implanted memory.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[TheRaven64]

In the book, there's a lot of ambiguity about whether Decard is human, but only in his mind. There's also another bounty hunter who fails the empathy test when asked about androids, but passes it when asked about humans. The 'electric sheep' line from the title is a reference to the fact that, after almost destroying themselves in a nuclear war, humans are expected to keep pets to demonstrate their empathy and it's been engrained in the survivors as the most important character trait, yet the manipulate their emotions with mood organs and via shared religious experiences. Most of the subtext was lost in the movie (fortunately, so was the weird subplot about the police precinct populated entirely by androids, who believed that they were humans hunting androids).

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[TheRaven64]

Pris was made years ago for off-world use. Rachel is a recent creation to serve as a test subject / surrogate daughter

In the book, Pris and Rachel are the same model and identical. Rachel seduces Deckard so that he will have an emotional reaction to Pris, which will slow him down. In the film, she seduces him because the film wanted some implication of sex at that point.

Re:Why does this need a sequel?

[Grishnakh]

If Deckard is a replicant, then Roy's final act of saving Deckard, and his beautiful value of life speech means nothing.

I don't how this is, unless you think the replicants are less than human (which the movie, as you point out, is showing us is not true).

Also, Roy had no way of knowing whether Deckard was a replicant or not. Roy was obviously operating on the assumption that Deckard was a normal human.

Re: Why does this need a sequel?

[strikethree]

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.

Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[kruach aum]

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?

[carbuck]

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.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[ShanghaiBill]

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:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[rmdingler]

Yes. At one time, he was in six of the ten most prolific box office successes of all friggin' time, counting the Star Wars trilogy and the Indiana Jones cash machine.

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:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[Khyber]

"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:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[lucm]

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:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[khasim]

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.

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 it a sequel.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[Artifakt]

What's left that one should not do?

Cowboys vrs. Aliens

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[Grishnakh]

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 doesn't look that much like BR, not yet at least. Like a lot of sci-fi, it was overly optimistic with the dates, and they should have added 50 years or so to the dates. The same goes for 2001: A Space Odyssey, which should have been named 2100 instead. We don't have antigravity tech yet (pictured in BR with the flying cars), and are unlikely to get it anytime soon since our understanding of physics doesn't allow it.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[phantomfive]

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?

[The Rizz]

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:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[a0me]

On the other hand, the guy is in his seventies and is one of the richest actors in the world; he probably doesn't need to pander to anyone anymore.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[rogoshen1]

Yeah, they should have asked bennet what he thinks... not some actor.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[rogoshen1]

Ack! Sorry to reply to my own post, but forgot to mention.. Harrison Ford isn't even a frequent contributor.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[avandesande]

It doesn't seem to have hurt Johnny Depp's career.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[ShieldW0lf]

It isn't "Voodoo Zombie Kung Fu Womens Prison" movies. Because that turned out to be completely awesome!

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt04...

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[Kjella]

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 Rolling Stones touring even though they're soon senior citizens, I doubt they need the fame or the fortune either but it doesn't stop them replaying old hits.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[Sir Realist]

Two words: Crystal Skull.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[FatLittleMonkey]

as he has managed to pick some some pretty good movies to be involved with.

He's also picked some absolute shockers. And the ratio of gems to shit seems to fall over time. Most of his recent work, even in otherwise good films, seems phoned in.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[Grishnakh]

Well yes, at the rate we're going now, we're probably never going to have rotating space stations. Instead, we're going to destroy ourselves before we figure out how to make those.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[Solandri]

Actually, I think most of his success stems from the fact that half the population thinks he's devastatingly handsome. There's a saying about James Earl Jones - that if he did a performance reading a phone book, it would sell out. Same thing for actors like Harrison Ford in the visual sense. His image helped make the movies successful as much as the other way around.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[BarbaraHudson]

Yeah, they should have asked bennet what he thinks... not some actor.

Bennett won;t have anything to do with a story about blade runners - he's a replicant.

On the bright side ... someone should be able to calculate how much longer we need to wait before he times out ...

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[kaizendojo]

Why should I care what *you* think? At least Ford ACTED in the movie. His opinion would be infinitely more nuanced than that of someone who simply viewed the film. No offense personally, but you asked.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[kaizendojo]

Sabrina made $87,313,761 worldwide and an additonal $23,321,710 in US rentals alone. On a budget of $53,000,00. Hardly a dud. What have YOU done lately?

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[kruach aum]

There were more than one actors in that movie, and I doubt their opinions are identical to each other. How do you decide between them? Surely only one of them can be right.

In other words, the fact that someone acted in a movie does not make their opinion more valuable than that of someone who hasn't.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[Strudelkugel]

Don't forget "American Graffiti", arguably a classic and made when Ford was not well known. Lucas wasn't either.

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[rmdingler]

Great idea for a nostalgia night movie.

If the kids misbehave, hell, even if they don't, I can make them watch it with me to balance the scales on one of the Land Before Time marathons.

What? No CG? aw-w-w...

Re:Why do I care what Harrison Ford thinks?

[kaizendojo]

Your argument is faulty and your conclusions are based on faulty logic but I will try to reply.... He played the lead character and one of two leads who survived at the end of the movie. He also read both scripts. He has also appeared in more critically acclaimed movies and box office successes. He is obviously very careful about his career as he could appear in countless movies but doesn't. I think I made my first point clear. As far as "how do you decide between them" as none of the previous films actors have read the script and publicly commented, then I think there's no conflict here.

Best Script Ever?

[Noryungi]

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?

[MightyYar]

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:Best Script Ever?

[geantvert]

IMHO, the Crystal Skull was indeed really bad but the Last Crusade was ok.
 

Re:Best Script Ever?

[Orgasmatron]

You aren't looking forward to seeing Rick Deckard and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skulls?

Re:Best Script Ever?

[quantaman]

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?

[mlookaba]

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade is a great movie. Just sayin.

Re:Best Script Ever?

[BarbaraHudson]

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 from The Simpsons?

Re:Best Script Ever?

[Grishnakh]

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:Best Script Ever?

[russotto]

Crystal Skull was, by most accounts, indeed crap.

It was funny as hell. For all the wrong reasons, sure, but still funny as hell. Basically it was an unintentional self-parody.

Re:Best Script Ever?

[Wain13001]

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:Best Script Ever?

[Tablizer]

"It's the best script ever because I get to shoot first this time!" -HF

Re:Best Script Ever?

[JonnyCalcutta]

Just to remove any doubt as to his ability to star in shit movies - Die Hard 4.0

CGi revives Ford

[turkeydance]

well, isn't that expected?

Ridley, please stop

[MichaelSmith]

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

[clovis]

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.

Re:I'm waiting for Buster Friendly

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll wait for Bennett's concise piece on the subject and how it relates to the classic Burning Man Ice Problem.

Re:I'm waiting for Buster Friendly

[clovis]

I'll wait for Bennett's concise piece on the subject and how it relates to the classic Burning Man Ice Problem.

No ice for you!
Next!

Do Androids Dream of Electric Sequels?

[wbr1]

No, but post prime actors and directors do. So do Hollywood execs. Hell Get JJ. Abrams on board and add a bunch of lens flare.

Re:Do Androids Dream of Electric Sequels?

[Mister Transistor]

And fizzy rockets! Lots of fizzy rockets!!!

Re:Do Androids Dream of Electric Sequels?

[Teresita]

Hell Get JJ. Abrams on board and add a bunch of lens flare.

I gotta fever, and the only prescription is more lens flare!

Star Wars 7 Trailer, Lens Flare Edition

Re:It's so much easier to criticise...

[MichaelSmith]

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...

[lucm]

Fuck the haters

This is gold

Re:The best ever?

[lucm]

He was pretty good in Knight Rider and in The Karate Kid.

Read the Book

[jazman_777]

It's way better than the Blade Runner movie, although the movie depicts the feel of the environment incredibly well. The story is pretty thin, though, compared with Dick's story. Dick turned down an option to write a "dumbed-down" (that is, change the Rosen Corporation's name to Tyrell Corporation, wink wink nudge nudge!) version of his story for publication with the movie release.

Re:Read the Book

[Anonymous Coward]

It's way better than the Blade Runner movie, although the movie depicts the feel of the environment incredibly well. The story is pretty thin, though, compared with Dick's story. Dick turned down an option to write a "dumbed-down" (that is, change the Rosen Corporation's name to Tyrell Corporation, wink wink nudge nudge!) version of his story for publication with the movie release.

I quit agree.
For those who don't know, the movie is based on the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", which got re-released and re-titled to "Blade Runner" sometime after the movie's success.
The book is complex and requires some thought to parse out what Philip K Dick is saying about today's world (well, 1968 isn't all that different than today). When I saw the movie, I was upset. The movie was fun and very well done in itself, but everything that mattered about the book was missing from the movie. I now think of the movie as just some pictures to help visualize the book.

It is not a logistics problem

[rmdingler]

And the hippies go,

"Chill. You'll get your ice when the time is right."

Deckard

[bmo]

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:Deckard

[sgt scrub]

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:Deckard

[Threni]

> Since Replicants live short lives, and Deckard is a Replicant, how is this going to be reconciled
> in the movie?

Given Replicants are machines, there's nothing from taking a snapshot of their state and restoring that state into a new machine. I do it with vmware all the time. As long as the new Replicant hardware has support for virtualisation, that is.

Re:Deckard

[Wain13001]

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:Deckard

[Time_Ngler]

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:Deckard

[Jack Griffin]

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.

Re:Deckard

[kbg]

I think it was clear in the movie that Deckard was a never model and modeled to be more human like than the other models. The motto of the company was "More human than human" so that would imply that Deckard could age.

Lots of possibilities

[rickb928]

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 could be a minor character in the continuing story...

Yeah well

[epyT-R]

I am sure they'll find a way to butcher it. They've managed to butcher everything else from my childhood.

Prometheus.

[MouseR]

Enough said.

I'll wait for the Netflix release.

Best ever!

[prisoner-of-enigma]

Yeah, just like Prometheus was the "best ever" sequel to Alien!

Doubt it

[phantomfive]

Here's the plot, on Wikipedia. BladeRunner was powerful because it introduced an interesting world, and told a story while exploring that world. Some of the best scenes revolved around the Voight Kampff test, and they were successful in part because the audience was being introduced to the test, and how a replicant would respond to it.

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 surprising, because it is by a different author).

Re:Doubt it

[BarbaraHudson]

That's a story from a series of Blade Runner books. Not the plot of Blade Runner 2, the movie.

Re:Doubt it

[phantomfive]

I see.

Re:Doubt it

[Jack Griffin]

This is the problem with the Sci-Fi genre in general. The 70's/early 80's were golden years because the audience was discovering technology for the first time, and movies simply explored those concepts and presented them to a passionate audience.
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.

Re:Doubt it

[Anonanonaon]

I think you're quite right, and if you'll forgive me, I'm going to jump in and blab about some of my own thoughts because it's a subject I love!

Stories are only half the equation; the audience is required to close the loop, so to speak. Sci-fi doesn't age well.

-Which is not to say that a well-told sci-fi story can't still be moving/entertaining years later. "The Forever War" is still a great read today, (I know because I read it for the first time only short while ago). But I think it's safe to say that it will never match the experiential juju created when you involve an unjaded audience learning certain concepts for the first time.

Back in the 70's, people were still coming to grips with the concept of time dilation resulting from light-speed travel. -I remember as a kid my (not a scientist) mom eagerly explaining the principle to me in order to make sense of "Planet of the Apes". -A movie which would probably not get made today because the big whammie ending wouldn't have a tenth of the impact on today's well-informed audiences.

So how do you make an engaging film today which pushes everybody's buzz-button?

What new concepts are not yet fully understood by everybody but which seem to hold massive power over the course of history and culture?

Answer that, and you'll have a new popular genre on your hands.

I find it interesting that zombie films are so big right now. Psychology in action.

Re:Doubt it

[umafuckit]

I also disagree. If sci fi is worse today then it's just due to lazier film making and a desire to turn sci fi movies into vapid blockbusters. It might be true that people were more passionate about technology and science 30 years ago (after all, the moon landings were a much more recent thing then). But I wonder how much better informed they really were.

If you can call Gravity a sci fi movie, then I'd judge it a success. I rather liked Solaris, although that was a remake of a 70s movie which as an adaptation of a 60s book. Unfortunately, there's a lot of disappointing stuff too. I've not seen the original V, but I found the new one really disappointing. It felt like a rather generic action series. I'd love to see a film adaptation of Childhood's End.

Re:Doubt it

[mattpalmer1086]

Interesting thesis, but I don't buy it. Audience were not discovering technology for the first time, and it was not the first time cinema explored it. One of the most classic sci fi films ever was Metropolis, made in the 1920s. There were some very good sci fi films made in that era (and some very bad ones too).

In fact, Blade runner didn't appeal to audiences much when it was released. It has become a classic afterwards, probably because it's based on a quality story and the acting, direction, music and atmosphere of the film are great. And because Ridley got rid of the annoying voice over, which the movie execs mandated so the dumb audience could understand it. Not a passionate audience, note, or at least, that's not how the movie industry saw the audience and the films they were creating for them.

Re:Doubt it

[drinkypoo]

I loved 2001 and I hate excessive jump cuts but I found Solaris to be a zzzzzzzz

Re:Doubt it

[ikhider]

Watch Shane Carruth films. The guy has the tiniest budget but makes my favorite sci fi films. So far he has done Primer and Upstream Color. I love them both. He is one (sci fi) director who manages to give me that sense of wonder.

Re:Doubt it

[msobkow]

I disagree completely. Good science fiction has never been about the technology, but about human and alien personalities and moral questions brought about by the technology. Good science fiction explores interpersonal relationships, character traits, philosophical stances, and other such subject matter.

The science fiction of the mid-late '80s made good movies because the directors and script writers were selecting stories with deep connotations, instead of viewing them with an eye towards turning them into CGI action flicks emphasizing trivia like "the technology" instead of the plot.

There is still a tremendous amount of good science fiction written over the years that would make terrific movies. But hollywood won't back those "risks" -- they're too busy investing in action movies pretending to be science fiction. There are exceptions to that, but for the most part you know it's true: hollywood doesn't want to discuss morality, philosophy, and personal interactions in a script. They want a nice "safe" piece of pablum that will make audiences go "ooh" and "aah" over the mindless special F/X, not cause them to think for themselves.

Re:Doubt it

[hey!]

I thought what made the original Blade Runner so powerful was the way it depicted subjective experience as both precious and ephemeral. When you reach the stage of your life when you begin to confront your mortality, you're painfully aware that the most precious things you've accumulated are memories, and how one instant those memories will be here, and the next they'll be gone forever.

I expect the sequel won't be as good as the original, simply because of regression to the mean. The original was something special, and it's simply not possible to manufacture that. In Hollywood they try, they hire the smartest, most talented, most attractive people, make them work like hell and hope for a miracle. But we all know that model doesn't produce greatness, it produces adequacy, on an operatic scale.

Still, while it's a reasonably safe bet the sequel will fall short of the original, you can't be completely sure. Lighting does sometimes strike the same place twice. I agree the plot outlined doesn't look so promising, but you never know.

Re:Doubt it

[phantomfive]

I thought what made the original Blade Runner so powerful was the way it depicted subjective experience as both precious and ephemeral. When you reach the stage of your life when you begin to confront your mortality, you're painfully aware that the most precious things you've accumulated are memories, and how one instant those memories will be here, and the next they'll be gone forever.

I agree.

Re:Doubt it

[Dogtanian]

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 surprising, because it is by a different author).

That's a story from a series of Blade Runner books. Not the plot of Blade Runner 2, the movie.

Yeah... I suspect the film's still going to be written by a different author though. Well, unless there have been significant improvements in ouija board technology I wasn't aware of...

it will certainly be a flop

[serbanp]

Especially since Harrison Ford praises the script. I wonder what his opinion was regarding the Indiana Jones IV script.

Re:it will certainly be a flop

[Black Parrot]

Especially since Harrison Ford praises the script. I wonder what his opinion was regarding the Indiana Jones IV script.

They supposedly waited all those years for the right script to come along.

Re:Indiana Jones Movies

[MightyYar]

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.

Ford thought he was reading a screenplay...

[Snufu]

but it was really just a test designed to provoke an emotional response.

Ford had better step up his game

[Karmashock]

He looked tired and bored in the last Indy movie. He had better not do that again in the new Blade Runner movie.

Re:Ford had better step up his game

[Karmashock]

I saw both and agree. He seems to have no energy. The Ford spark is not in evidence.

Look at John Wayne's later movies as a counter example. To the day the man died he had the spark. Ford looks like he's guttered out.

He hated blade runner

[0xdeaddead]

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?

Replicant

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does? You do, baby! You do!"

Fuck what Harrison Ford says

[AbRASiON]

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.

Re:Fuck what Harrison Ford says

[Piata]

I don't know about that. Reading the Reddit AMA with Harrison Ford, it seems he enjoys making films that entertain people.

He also isn't terribly sentimental or nostalgic. He doesn't own many props from the films he's been in and the berevitiy of some of his scenes ("I love you", "I know" and shooting the swordsman in the first Indiana Jones) seems to be directly tied to Harrison Ford cutting through the bullshit and getting to the point. I wouldn't say he's a phony, he's just not into all the fluff surrounding his characters and I think that's what actually draws people to his performance.

e.g. Our intro to him in Star Wars is a business deal, followed by shooting an alien that talks too much. That's Harrison Ford. That's what he does, that's why people like him and that's why Han Solo saying "May the force be with you" is such a big deal; Han Solo (and Harrison Ford) do not care about the mythos and the jargon while everyone else is falling head over heels for it.

In that regard, he's probably one of the most authentic actors in Holly Wood.

The fucking fuck

[FatLittleMonkey]

Ridley Scott is one of my favourite directors and aliens is one of the best movies ever made

Ridley Scott directed Alien. James Cameron wrote and directed Aliens.

In 1982 it was a minority opinion, but existed.

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1982 it was a minority opinion, but definitely existed.

I know because I saw the original release in the theater twice, and I and my friends argued about it at the time.

Mod parent up.

[bussdriver]

Harrison Ford always pimps the movies he is in when they are coming out. Just recall or go look it up. Since it's in the contract and he is essentially PAID to promote it all he can do is soften the required praise he gives. After Indie 4 he probably feels the need for stronger support since his taste is continues to prove not so great.

title suggestions

[argStyopa]

"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.

Eyes?

[denzacar]

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.

Sure, sure... That's why they just shine a flashlight into someone's eyes to see if they are a replicant.

Phew... And here I feared there'd have to use some kind of a complicated multi-hour psychobabble test about empathy, memories and baby spiders.
A test, during which, a camera shines a bright red light into their eyes.
A test, during which, they pull the shades down as it is too bright in the room to do the test.
Which shades out the light from the Sun - which just happens to shine in the owl's ONE red glowing eye.
Which is funny, and must be some kind of error in the filming, a goof if you will, cause when the owl turns around NOW IT'S THE OTHER EYE THAT IS GLOWING.
And as we " know " that the red glow is actually an indicator of replicantness and NOT just the light of the Sun reflecting - it must be a goof by a well known hackfraud Ridley Scott.

But the most hilarious bit in these discussions about Deckard being a replicant is that should we accept those arguments to be true (regardless of logic or veracity) - they make BR into a shitty movie and reveal Scott to be a crappy director. And the whole thing is pushed by none other than him.

Why is that a shitty movie?
Cause human Decard showing empathy for toasters (which is what replicants are after all - just a machine with a timer which tells them what to do and when) emphasizes his HUMANITY.
Deckard's reluctance to return to the job, him falling for Rachel, him being afraid of Batty and then sharing in his final moment - it's all a show of his humanity.
And, the audience being human, it recognizes its own humanity in his.

A toaster pretending to be reluctant (it has no feelings - it's just a preprogrammed toaster) chasing a toaster, who does not want to be a toaster and wants to be a real boy/girl, pretending to fall for a toaster who thinks it's a real girl but finds out it is only a toaster, then pretends to be afraid, pretending to understand a toaster having a pretend moment... there is EXPLICITLY nothing to relate to in such a story.
Further more, it's an equivalent of a movie where the director shows the audience a man eating a juicy cake - and then tells the audience after credits that the cake is actually made of feces.

It is a movie which implies that the audience is stupid for assuming that what they are seeing is true.

Only, when that truth is empathy and humanity, Scott is actually trying to berate the audience for BEING HUMAN.
Either way, he comes of as an idiot. A George Lucas without all the toys.

He has issues. His brother CLEARLY had issues as well, maybe it runs in the family.
But Ridley's are more along the lines of some obsessive compulsive disorder combined with confidence issues.
He keeps second guessing his own work and taking any criticism at face value and as absolute judgment of quality.
Which is why so many of his movies end up with half the footage on the cutting floor.

The making of featurette of The Legend is very revealing of his flaws.
It's not that he will cut up the movie cause he heard some potheads snickering in the audience - it's how he will plunge openminded into any nonsense anyone suggests. Cause it will work in his mind at the moment.
"At the moment" being the operative term - as a single question later he will throw it out.
Though a moment ago he was all into scrapping half the movie and starting it over with l

Re: Eyes?

[JasonGoatcher]

The audience being human, it recognizes its own humanity in his.

A toaster pretending to be reluctant (it has no feelings - it's just a preprogrammed toaster) chasing a toaster, who does not want to be a toaster and wants to be a real boy/girl, pretending to fall for a toaster who thinks it's a real girl but finds out it is only a toaster, then pretends to be afraid, pretending to understand a toaster having a pretend moment... there is EXPLICITLY nothing to relate to in such a story...It's an equivalent of a movie where the director shows the audience a man eating a juicy cake - and then tells the audience after credits that the cake is actually made of feces.

It is a movie which implies that the audience is stupid for assuming that what they are seeing is true.

Only, when that truth is empathy and humanity, Scott is actually trying to berate the audience for BEING HUMAN.

So, if I sypathize with Wall-E, what does that do to your whole argument.

Re: Eyes?

[denzacar]

Or maybe the point was, at what point does "machines faking emotion" become "machines having emotions"?

And the answer would be "never". You stupid audience member.

If Rachel's childhood memories are all fake implants, and Decker's dreams (unicorns) and desires (matchstick man with a hard-on) are all fake implants, they are no different than Leon pretending to be human by carrying around photos (i.e. memories) or Batty memorizing "attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion".
Machines imitating human actions, trying to merely survive.

Besides, it is not about "emotions". They all show plenty of fear and anger, even happiness.
It's about EMPATHY.

The book is all about how humans NEED to empathize.
The movie only works if audience empathizes with the characters.

IF there is humanity in those characters to empathize with - that emphasizes audience's humanity.
If there isn't any humanity, if it is all fake and they are all toasters - that's not emphasizing empathy but pointing a finger at the human cognitive flaw of anthropomorphizing the machines.
It's berating the audience for their human flaws. For being human.
And that is stupid. Particularly coming from another human.
Which makes it a bad movie with a messed up message.

A movie with human Decker has a human witnessing something much like humanity in the machines he destroys, tries to save or is saved by.
The question of "at what point" is his and it is a valid one cause he, as a human, does not have that answer.
He does however, being human and not a machine, have free will and the ability to choose to try and save Rachel DESPITE everything and everyone telling him it will be a futile endeavor.
Not having a precise answer he makes a choice based on intuition and feelings and answers the question with "Now. At this point."

And there is no "sin" in audience feeling the same - cause we are all humans and there is nothing wrong with that. No shame. No sin. Just us. Humans.
It is a better AND more positive movie with a clear message.

Re: Eyes?

[denzacar]

So, if I sypathize with Wall-E, what does that do to your whole argument.

Same thing mustard does. Nothing.

Sympathize ain't empathize.
Also, under the assumption that you are not a dog, your sympathy or empathy just makes you human.

Which again, does nothing to the argument. Cause that is not what it is about.
I'm not the one arguing that sympathy, empathy or anthropomorphizing is wrong or bad.

My argument is about human empathy OF the audience, WITH characters on the screen which are revealed in a twist to ALL be just robots - being INVALIDATED by that twist.
It's Scott yelling at the audience "Your empathy is futile, silly human. There is nothing to empathize with here. You are merely anthropomorphizing a walking toaster. IT does not feel! It is programmed to appear to fell. HA-HAA! And the cake is a lie too. It's made of shit! And you thought it looked tasty and delicious! STUPID HUMANS! YOU ARE ALL STUPID!!! Oh... wait... I'm human too..."

And that is stupid as berating a rock for being a rock.

Re: Eyes?

[AK Marc]

If your feces cake looked good, and the actor looked like he enjoyed it, then what's the problem? If you salivate over feces, why can't that be the point? The film maker made you fall in love with or empathize with a toaster. That is "art". That you don't like it or understand it doesn't diminish it.

Re: Eyes?

[AK Marc]

So you find all magicians to be rude and condescending as well? They trick you out of hate for humankind?

Tricking you to make you think doesn't have the message you assert.

Re: Eyes?

[denzacar]

You are either deliberately missing the point and arguing a metaphor - i.e. trolling; missing the point cause you lack the capacity - i.e. mental skills to tell the metaphor from the argument and both from the issue at hand; or... well... have other issues.

Either way, even my time is more valuable than that.

Re: Eyes?

[AK Marc]

I think you are the troll, deliberately missing the point. Making someone empathize with a toaster isn't offensive, as you claim. Just because it's "a trick" doesn't make it offensive. People have the tendency to anthropomorphize everything. IF you can get the audience to anthopomorphize a toaster, then empathize with it, then how is that a "trick"? And why would that be offensive?

Sounds more like you are offended at the idea that he's a Replicant, and are irrationally lashing out at anyone that doesn't support your answer.

Re: Eyes?

[JasonGoatcher]

Maybe I am missing the point, things like irony and sarcasm tend to confuse me. Sometimes I can tell I'm being made fun of by someone while simultaneously have no idea what they're making fun of about me.

Re: Eyes?

[JasonGoatcher]

There's also the question of when faking an emotion actually turns into exhibiting the emotion. Since no one knows where consciousness comes from, we really can't tell where simulation and actual experience collide.

Re: Eyes?

[AK Marc]

Studies have shown that pretending to have an emotion end up in having the emotion. This is used where people are given an exercise to argue the "pro" side of a topic they are on the "con" side of, or vice versa. The people end up liking the side they said they didn't like. Saying something enough, makes it true in the mind of the speaker. Emotions are behavioral justifications, people seem to think they precede the action, but studies show that they don't necessarily.

Also, the memory of them is maliable. You can hate killing someone in combat your first time, but 1000 kills later, look back at your first kill fondly, believing you liked it at the time. That's also true for watching movies, or other more mundane things.

Best ever?

[jandersen]

...rest assured. Harrison Ford apparently thinks the script is "the best thing (he's) ever read."

On the other hand, he also starred in 'The Crystal Skull', one of the most appaling disappointments I've seen, after enjoying the first Indiana Jones movies. Harrison Ford had a wonderful self-irony in the first movies, but in the last one he seems to take himself so serious that it's impossible to enjoy the action.

His last movie is crap, aparently.

[Qbertino]

Aparently his last movie, Exodus, is crap. ... I hope he doesn't screw this up.

I have read the script. Spoilers at your own risk

[paiute]

It turns out that Philip K. Dick is the replicant.

2 words

[waspleg]

Crystal Skull.

Also if you know anything about him he was a carpenter on the original Star Wars set not even an actor. He's a running example of winning a life long lottery for dumb luck.

Have Shane Carruth direct it, and it will be good.

[ikhider]

Ridley Scott's Alien and Blade Runner are gorgeous, meticulously put-together films. I have no idea why his later films came out so horribly, like Prometheus. About the only director at this time who can instill a sense of wonder is Shane Carruth. Throw him into the mix and it will be good. Don't make the film a special effects fiesta. Some subtle bits here and there. And please, please do not call it "Blade Runner 2". You are begging for a bad film at that point.

best ever...

[roc97007]

Isn't anyone concerned that similar things were said about Indy 4 before it was released?

Re:Have Shane Carruth direct it, and it will be go

[Neil Boekend]

Please do call it Blade Runner 2. The nonsense of muddying up the sequence of films by not doing that is irritating.

Kingdom of Heaven

[PPalmgren]

I'm agnostic but I really liked that movie. I think it really captured what it means to live to that religious principle because it showed both the right and wrong way to do it. Was the director's cut really that good? I might have to check it out.

Nope. You're off in so many ways...

[denzacar]

...from arguing a metaphor through various attempts at insults to having no clue about what you are talking (nope... that's not art) and steering off down that tangent road into the sunset of irrelevant conclusions and off topic.

Also, you're trolling.

So... Hey, you know what?

Re:Nope. You're off in so many ways...

[AK Marc]

What, you saw that I proved my point so solidly in another post, that you ignored the ones where I proved you wrong, and went after all the other posts I made and went straight to ad hominems. That makes you the troll, not me.

it'd be easy to sell an older Deckard

[ruebarb]

I could see a story where as a Replicant, his cells were programmed to appear to age as the years went by for the same reason they would implant false memories - to keep the unit thinking it was human and able to do it's job

OR they could ditch that train of thought and just say he was never a Replicant in the first place like most of non-geek America believes, but making him one gives a lot of room for the plot to be better than him just coming back out of retirement to hunt more skinjobs