Slashdot Mirror
Blade Runner 2 Script Done, Harrison Ford Says "the Best Ever"
BarbaraHudson (3785311) writes "It's been more than 30 years, but finally the script for Blade Runner 2 is done. Original interview with Ridley Scott on MTV. Links for those who don't want to watch the interview. If you're worried that the upcoming Blade Runner sequel won't measure up to the 1982 sci-fi cult classic, rest assured. Harrison Ford apparently thinks the script is "the best thing (he's) ever read." Although Scott is debating whether or not he'll direct the sequel, it looks like Ford will most certainly be reprising his role as Rick Deckard."
Fair enough, but did he ever say, "Crystal Skull is the best script I have ever read," or did he say, "This is the biggest paycheck I've ever seen!"?
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Actually, I would guess that judging movie scripts had a big effect on his fame, as he has managed to pick some some pretty good movies to be involved with. If he had, instead, chosen crappy movie scripts, I'm sure that no amount of good acting would help advance his fame. If he thought the sequel script was bad, I doubt he would waste his time on it, as he doesn't need the fame, and probably doesn't need the cash.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Yeah, they should have asked bennet what he thinks... not some actor.
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.
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.