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."
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?
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.
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.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
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.
Silence is a state of mime.
IMHO, the Crystal Skull was indeed really bad but the Last Crusade was ok.
Fuck the haters
This is gold
lucm, indeed.
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.
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.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
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?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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.)
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.
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.
"Deckard was a replicant."
In fact, Deckard neither was a replicant nor a human: he was a Schordinger factoid.
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.
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.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
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.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
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.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
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.
but it was really just a test designed to provoke an emotional response.
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.
It becomes a much deeply recursive movie once you realize Eldon Tyrell was a replicant.
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.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
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?
"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.
-Styopa
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.
xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
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.
"SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
"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.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
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.
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.
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.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen