Harrison Ford To Return In Blade Runner Sequel

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Harrison Ford To Return In Blade Runner Sequel

Posted by Soulskill on Friday February 27, 2015 @02:39AM from the geriaction-heroes dept.

An anonymous reader sends news that Harrison Ford is now confirmed to be returning as Rick Deckard in the upcoming sequel to Blade Runner. Ridley Scott is now officially an executive producer for the film as well, and Denis Villeneuve will direct. It's set to begin production in the summer of 2016.

222 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

I Have Plans Now by Akratist · 2015-02-27 02:42 · Score: 3, Funny

...going to be camping outside the theater for the next few years.
1. Re:I Have Plans Now by slashmydots · 2015-02-27 03:03 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  That's old school. You have to fly a drone over the filming location. Then you can upload and all aerial bootleg version to a torrent site before they're even done filming it.
2. Re:I Have Plans Now by cayenne8 · 2015-02-27 04:21 · Score: 1
  
  You know....I've just never really "gotten" this movie. Perhaps I need to watch it again, I hear there are different versions of it out now, that maybe give you more insight to the story.
  But of the times I've seen it way in the past, it just never really hit me as that good of a movie.
  I know I was disappointed as a kid when it came out originally in theaters, I was expecting something like Star Wars and it wasn't that.
  I saw it a few years after that and to me, really...it was just kinda boring. It seemed just dreary and I wasn't even that impressed with the SPFX.
  Then again, since then, I've become a Phillip K. Dick fan and I like other adaptations of his stuff, so maybe I need to go back and try to watch this again with new eyes.
  Can someone recommend the definitive version to watch out of what I believe are 3x of them out there? Which one and why?
  
  --
  Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
3. Re:I Have Plans Now by JudgeFurious · 2015-02-27 04:29 · Score: 1
  
  Where did you get your new eyes? Hannibal Chew? He makes great eyes!
  
  --
  Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
4. Re:I Have Plans Now by gstoddart · 2015-02-27 04:43 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I know I was disappointed as a kid when it came out originally in theaters, I was expecting something like Star Wars and it wasn't that.
  And that's kind of the problem ... Blade Runner would be a terrible movie to a kid.
  The appeal of Blade Runner was, in part, the world they created: gritty, dark, decaying -- contrasted with the high-tech world of the wealthy. The story was much more sophisticated than a kid is going to get, it's definitely not space opera -- and understanding some of the stuff which is more insinuated than stated is a lot harder.
  For me, the one labelled "The Director's Cut" restores some of the film noire elements, does a little more filling in the gaps, and makes more sense. The theatrical version lost some stuff in translation and dumbed it down a little.
  I see there's now a "Definitive Edition", but I've not seen it and don't know much about it.
  Find the Director's cut, and pay special attention to the things which suggest Decker is a replicant (sorry if that's a spoiler, but I assume this has been well known for a very long time), and have fun.
  IMO, it really is a damned fine movie.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
5. Re: I Have Plans Now by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:01 · Score: 0
  
  So you mean Spaceballs the movie. Its in theaters before they finish filming it? (I am going for funny so mod. appropriately)
6. Re:I Have Plans Now by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:04 · Score: 0
  
  Can you enjoy and appreciate any film noir? Bladerunner is a film noir study of personal struggle with a gritty dystopian backdrop and a tragic story arc.
  You shouldn't think of Bladerunner and Star Wars as a similar genre because of "science fiction" or because they have Harrison Ford. Star Wars (the original) is a very different serial adventure format with a space fantasy backdrop and much more operatic themes and shallow characters. If anything, Star Wars and Indiana Jones are more similar in style and story arc with struggles that resolve in redemption for the heroes.
  I liked Bladerunner for the same reason I like film noir and tragedy in general. I prefer realistic struggle and ambiguity in the resolution of the story (both ethical ambiguity and simple plot ambiguity) that leaves you pondering aspects of the human condition.
7. Re:I Have Plans Now by Maury+Markowitz · 2015-02-27 05:33 · Score: 1
  
  > know I was disappointed as a kid when it came out originally in theaters
  Interesting. I saw it after it passed its first run, and it was a double-feature (remember those?) with Firefox starting. I arrived late and saw the 2nd half of Firebox, which even as a 15-yr-old boy nerd I dismissed as silly. Then Blade Runner came on. I remember being awed. Not by the plot itself, but by the vision. The gritty always-raining deteriorating city stuck in my mind like no movie since Star Wars (in which case it was the *scale* that stuck in my mind). This was shortly after reading Johnny Mnemonic for the first time, so that likely has a lot to do with it.
8. Re:I Have Plans Now by mrex · 2015-02-27 05:36 · Score: 1
  
  You know....I've just never really "gotten" this movie.
  It's certainly not Scott's most accessible film. Much is left unspoken and implied, not dumbed down. That's one of the (many) reasons I like it so much: there's always something to discover or analyze.
  Here's one that even fans don't seem to have noticed: every human left on Earth, except the replicants, is shown to be somehow unfit for offworld travel (old & infirm, diseased, alcoholic, criminal). This seems like a major, major clue that Deckard is a replicant, but I've never seen any review or analysis of the film mention it, and of course it's never outright stated in the film.
  Which version you watch won't matter that much from the standpoint of "getting it". I like the Director's Cut.
9. Re:I Have Plans Now by kbg · 2015-02-27 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Well if you didn't pay attention to the clues throughout the film then the movie isn't as good. It's only when you realize that Deckard is also a replicant that the movie takes on a different deeper meaning.
10. Re:I Have Plans Now by painandgreed · 2015-02-27 06:25 · Score: 1
  
  And that's kind of the problem ... Blade Runner would be a terrible movie to a kid.
  I don't know. I was 12 and seeing it only because Harrison Ford/Han Solo was in it. From the opening scene of fireballs and giant buildings in a small city to the death of Roy, the movie blew me away. I was expecting something like Star Wars but this was new, different; perspective changing. Perhaps one of the reasons I like the narration in the theatrical version. The setting and scene was a stark contrast to the clean futures of science fiction that were almost always portrayed, but once the narrations started, I knew enough of the hardboiled detective stereotype that everything fell into place. What was old is new again. The rich get richer, the poor get poorer, and today's fancy neighborhoods are tomorrow's slums. It was one of those things that as a kid opened my mind to new ideas.
  That being said, the other film we could have seen was Megaforce with Chuck Norris (which I had already seen and thought stupid). My friend really didn't get Bladerunner and didn't understand and afterwards stated he thought he would have rather seen Megaforce. Unfortuantely, I had to agree with him, he would have enjoyed Megaforce much more than Bladerunner.
11. Re:I Have Plans Now by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 06:26 · Score: 0
  
  As a bonus, your randomly-edited cut of the raw footage will probably make more sense and be more enjoyable to watch than the actual movie.
12. Re:I Have Plans Now by fnj · 2015-02-27 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  All the answers to the contrary which you are going to get are wrong, wrong, wrong.
  By far the best version is the original theatrical cut. The international release is very slightly better (one minute of "scary violence" is cut from the U.S. release), but either that or the U.S. release will do very nicely. This is the only version with Ford's voiceover, which is absolutely essential to understanding what is going on. It also adds tremendously to the noir feel.
  The only way I know for sure to get this version is to get one of the multi-disc sets which include the "1982 theatrical release" (the 5-disc blu-ray set is a slam dunk). You can also get it on cable, but I doubt it is the only version circulating on cable or streaming.
  All other versions (rare original workprint, 1986 U.S. broadcast version, 1992 director's cut, 2007 final cut) are CRAP in comparison.
13. Re:I Have Plans Now by kidsizedcoffin · 2015-02-27 07:12 · Score: 1
  
  And then you have the random car driving off scene from The Shining?
14. Re:I Have Plans Now by Princeofcups · 2015-02-27 07:42 · Score: 1
  
  And that's kind of the problem ... Blade Runner would be a terrible movie to a kid.
  I loved it as a kid when I first saw it in the theater. The only things I hated were the voice over and the ending. Those got fixed by the time I was an adult.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
15. Re:I Have Plans Now by Demolition · 2015-02-27 08:37 · Score: 1
  
  I had pretty much the same experience that you did. I was 14 and was a big PKD fan, so I dragged half a dozen friends down to see it. I recall that one of the other choices at the theatre was a sword-and-sorcery movie; might have been Conan or Beastmaster or somesuch. We were conflicted about which to choose (because barbarian movies usually had babes in chain-link bikinis), but I convinced everybody to see Blade Runner.
  
  Luckily, most of my friends were high-minded enough to recognize and appreciate the film noir aspects of it. The grittiness was a stark contrast to, as you said, the "clean futures" that most science fiction movies portrayed.
  
  The one negative influence that I noticed from Blade Runner is that it influenced the production of a lot of low budget,"neo-noir" movies set in dystopian future settings. The entire decade of the '80s was rife with them. On the other hand, it also influenced many decent movies like 12 Monkeys and even The Dark Knight Rises. You win some, you lose some. :)
16. Re:I Have Plans Now by oh_my_080980980 · 2015-02-27 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  No it's the The Final Cut (2007) that you want. That's the one that Ridley Scott had control over, not The Director's Cut (1992). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V...
  
  It doesn't need a sequel. Movies are turning into manga where people need to have spoon feed conclusive endings. Dick did not write a sequel, though a friend did. Leave it and do a new one. Try a different novel.
17. Re:I Have Plans Now by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 12:34 · Score: 0
  
  I know I was disappointed as a kid when it came out originally in theaters, I was expecting something like Star Wars and it wasn't that.
  I saw Blade Runner when I was 12 years old. On VHS on a crappy tv. By that time around 1984/early 1985 I was a great Star Wars fan, Galattica and all the other campy science fiction films of that era. And yet Blade Runner impressed me. When I finished watching the film I said to my friend, "this is what science fiction is supposed to be. Realistic, dark, moody etc...". I remember thinking that Blade Runner nailed down what the city of the future would really look like, 2019 was so far away lol... (ok I was wrong on this but hey cut me some slack I was a kid at the time).
18. Re:I Have Plans Now by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 13:38 · Score: 0
  
  This is Ridley Prometheus Scott. I'll wait for the reviews.
19. Re:I Have Plans Now by RespekMyAthorati · 2015-02-28 12:32 · Score: 1
  
  Nah, the Final Cut was crap. You need the Final Final cut.
Oh God No... by Lord_Frederick · 2015-02-27 02:42 · Score: 5, Insightful

Please don't give this classic movie the crystal skull treatment. It doesn't deserve that.
1. Re:Oh God No... by DougOtto · 2015-02-27 02:43 · Score: 3
  
  This. This. 1000 times this.
  
  --
  Solving Unix problems since 1989...
2. Re:Oh God No... by Shortguy881 · 2015-02-27 02:44 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, what better way to ruin a great film.
  
  --
  Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
3. Re:Oh God No... by halivar · 2015-02-27 02:45 · Score: 1
  
  I still believe in Ridley Scott, even if I'm the only person on god's green earth that liked Prometheus. So Charlize Theron is not an ambi-turner; so what?
4. Re:Oh God No... by Tran · 2015-02-27 02:47 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  The story was complete.
  There is no sequel.
  Another story set in the same milieu? Now that could be done. But not a sequel.
5. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  We'll all go see it anyways.
  I hope they get Vangelis to do the soundtrack again.
6. Re: Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 02:54 · Score: 0
  
  They will do what they please with their intellectual property and you can shut up and drown in your own shit. Got it, nerds?
7. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 02:56 · Score: 0
  
  Prometheus would have been great had they stuck to the original script and kept it explicitly an Alien prequel like it was meant to be. So much wasted potential.
8. Re:Oh God No... by bruce_the_loon · 2015-02-27 03:00 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Prometheus rocked.
  
  --
  Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
9. Re:Oh God No... by The+Rizz · 2015-02-27 03:03 · Score: 1
  
  Another story set in the same milieu? Now that could be done. But not a sequel.
  If the few things I read about this late last year are any indication, that's what it is - something with a new Blade Runner as the primary protagonist, and Deckard is in the script as the old man who used to be one.
  And really, it's not like they could reasonably do this with Ford playing the hunter of Replicants anymore - he's 72 years old, and is starting to show it.
10. Re:Oh God No... by Etherwalk · 2015-02-27 03:04 · Score: 2
  
  Please don't give this classic movie the crystal skull treatment. It doesn't deserve that.
  That was David Koepp (the writer). His was the fifth draft and the first to be approved by the producers.
  *headdesk*
  He is the "fifth most successful screenwriter of all time in terms of domestic box office receipts with totals at just over $2 billion" according to Wikipedia.
  *simultaneous headdesk across America*
11. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:16 · Score: 0
  
  Please don't give this classic movie the crystal skull treatment. It doesn't deserve that.
  They'll give it the Prometheus treament. Happy ?
12. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:22 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Prometheus would have been great had they stuck to the original script and kept it explicitly an Alien prequel like it was meant to be. So much wasted potential.
  No. I've read the original script and it would have felt like a copy of Alien/Aliens. It would have been much worse than what we actually got. A stale film.
  Prometheus suffers from the same disease that afflicts The Phantom Menace. The theatrical cut is horrid. I saw one of the fan edits where the film starts with a presentation of Wayland himself. It was much much better than the theatrical cut. Same problem with Kingdom of Heaven. The theatrical cut was shit, the director's cut was excellent. I think that if Scott wanted to do a real director's cut with the material he already filmed (and left out of the theatrical cut) it would be great.
13. Re:Oh God No... by gstoddart · 2015-02-27 03:24 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old ... I just don't see how they get there at all. He's not just a hunter of them, he is one.
  So either they start this one in which Deckard isn't a replicant, and they'll piss off the fans of the movie. Or they'll have to treat very carefully to explain it.
  There are some movies and stories which do not invite sequels. This is one of them.
  Cynically, this sounds like someone looking to make some more money, not someone with a good follow up story for Blade Runner.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
14. Re:Oh God No... by Wootery · 2015-02-27 03:24 · Score: 1
  
  We'll all go see it anyways.
  Not me. If it gets an awful reception, I'm not going to see it in the cinema 'just because'.
  As with all these things, I remain cautiously optimistic.
15. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:33 · Score: 0
  
  Damn straight!
16. Re:Oh God No... by blind+biker · 2015-02-27 03:37 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Prometheus would have been an OK movie, if it didn't have plotholes the size of which lets a squadron of B-52s enter and leave.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
17. Re:Oh God No... by rot26 · 2015-02-27 03:42 · Score: 2
  
  How do you conclude that replicants don't appear to age? Most of them didn't live long enough to appear older, but for those that don't have an expiration date (presumably Deckard and Rachael) , there was nothing to imply that they wouldn't appear to age as they, well, aged. Apparently quite a few people did not understand what a "replicant" was supposed to be in the movie, or, for instance, why they would need human organs, like eyes. Hint: NOT A ROBOT.
  
  --
  
  To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
18. Re:Oh God No... by houghi · 2015-02-27 03:43 · Score: 1
  
  When they are done, you WISH they would have given it the skull treatment. That might always be an option. Or it is better.
  That or you could just not go and watch the movie, just like I did not watched The Hobbit, but loved the LotR. You can always NOT watch the movie.
  
  --
  Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
19. Re:Oh God No... by frank_adrian314159 · 2015-02-27 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  "fifth most successful screenwriter of all time in terms of domestic box office receipts with totals at just over $2 billion"
  Ding ding ding... We have our writer!
  
  --
  That is all.
20. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:53 · Score: 0
  
  Scott introduced some of them due to his intereference the two scientists thought that the other had the map which explains why they got lost but Scott could not be bothered to include the scene. Independence day also had a few seconds shot with Jeff Goldblum explaining why he could introduce the virus to the alien ship but it made way for a shot of a nutricious Coca-Cola product. Sometimes directors do not watch the films that they direct.
21. Re:Oh God No... by khasim · 2015-02-27 03:55 · Score: 1
  
  Leon puts his hand in freezing liquid without a problem.
  Pris puts her hand in boiling water without a problem.
  You can argue whether they are "robots" based upon YOUR definition of "robot". But those are not human hands.
22. Re:Oh God No... by blind+biker · 2015-02-27 04:01 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  I think Deckard from Blade Runner (unlike the one from PK Dick's story) is a replicant, but I see no reason why replicants couldn't age. The technology necessary for making replicants is, essentially, biochemistry. Highly advanced biochemistry. Now if they are able to make replicants that don't age, wouldn't they use the same or ancillary biotechnologies to help "normal" humans not age? Clearly, "normal humans" do age, so the problem of aging has not been solved in the Blade Runner universe.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
23. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:11 · Score: 0
  
  My kids have recently watched all the Indy movies, and my wife maintains that Crystal Skull was better than Temple of Doom. Not sure how I am supposed to keep living with that information...
24. Re:Oh God No... by Totenglocke · 2015-02-27 04:15 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I liked Prometheus and have never understood the hate for it. Now 2001: A Space Odyssey, that's a movie you can bash for having a poor / incoherent story line.
  
  --
  "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ~Thomas Jefferson
25. Re:Oh God No... by Simulant · 2015-02-27 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  Sequels to old movies are damned if they do and damned if they don't.
  
  I really didn't think Crystal Skull was that bad but I didn't expect much, especially after the Star Wars prequels.
  
  We the viewers have changed... the novelty has worn off. You can't recapture the same thrill you had as a kid no matter what the director does.
  The best you can hope for is a pleasant surprise and a lot of that has to do with adjusting your own expectations.
  
  Shouldn't be that hard for an audience who seemingly never tire of big, dumb, super hero movies....
26. Re:Oh God No... by bmo · 2015-02-27 04:21 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Replican'ts don't age because they only live 4 years.
  And since Harrison Ford is significantly visibly older, how the hell is Scott going to rectify THAT?
  CGI?
  Make him NOT a replicant?
  How about no.
  I'm going to stay the hell away from this movie.
  --
  BMO
27. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  Well, they're more like the Cylon skin-jobs (synthetic humans) than the Terminator (thin flesh coating over a metal superstructure).
  They're construction is sufficiently similar to a human that a medical exam is not sufficient to out one (why the blade runners have to interview suspected replicats to identify them).
28. Re:Oh God No... by MightyMartian · 2015-02-27 04:33 · Score: 2
  
  I thought Prometheus, all in all, was an excellent film. The only element that really bothered me was just how achingly stupid the captain of that ship was. But other than that sour point, the film was very good.
  
  --
  The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
29. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:37 · Score: 0
  
  No Crystal Skulls, they'll use Ford as a wall ornament.
30. Re:Oh God No... by invid · 2015-02-27 04:37 · Score: 1
  
  WHY CAN'T THEY JUST LEAVE ENOUGH ALONE! (pump fist into the sky) THERE ARE SOME THINGS MORE IMPORTANT THAN MONEY!
  
  --
  The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
31. Re:Oh God No... by MouseR · 2015-02-27 04:37 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  It was not said that ALL replicants live four years. The Nexus 6 were. But Decker and Rachel where not N6s.
32. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:39 · Score: 1
  
  The failsafe life span is for a certain class of replicants. There is no reason that Deckard, even as a replicant, was in that class.
  Rachel did not have a fixed life span. It was the Nexus 6 that were explicitly fixed life span.
  No one knows if Deckard has the limitation.
  Also no one really knows if Deckard was a replicant. It's basically only hinted at in the film.
  The story actually contains more compassion if he is human.
33. Re:Oh God No... by wierd_w · 2015-02-27 04:39 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  $ sh ./horridplotgen.sh
  Welcome to the horrid movie plot generator!
  Is this a sequel? [y/n] y
  To which classic movie or series? [list for options] Bladerunner
  What is the path for the entropy source? /dev/urandom
  Quality level? [list for options] list
  Passable Ok Meh Bad Terrible Hollywood
  Quality level? [list for options] Hollywood
  *************
  WARNING!
  You have selected "Hollywood"-- This will skip the rest of the configuration section, and set Hollywood defaults!
  Are you sure? [y/n] y
  Getting Bladerunner script from repository ......Done
  Training Markov chain engines ......Done
  Loading Hollywood_Sequel rules and preset defaults
  Done
  Confabulating plot synopsis ............Done
  Review generated plot blurb before full scriipt generation? [y/n] y
  ------
  After escaping from Tyrell towers with Rachel, Deckard attempts to flee the Earth with her to live on one of the remote colonies, fearing that another Blade Runner would submit Rachel to a "Voight-Kampff" test, and positively identify her as a replicant at some point if the pair remained on Earth. Rachel, now pregnant with Deckard's love child, must help Deckard fight their way off world as nosy officials and investigators attempt to detain them for their involvement in the events in Blade Runner leading to Tyrell's death, and the possibility that the replicants may have been successful in appropriating a means of circumventing their expiration dates and clandestinely transmitted the information offworld. Fearing the worst if Rachel is discovered, She and Deckard secretly depart earth aboard a cargo freighter headed for the Vega colony. There, he and Rachel welcome the birth of their half-replicant son, David, who is born with enhanced physical speed and strength. Many years later, Rachel begins to show signs of unanticipated complications of her replicant physiology due to being alive for so long. The three return to earth seeking answers from the archives of the financial remains of the once mighty Tyrell corporation, which has since fallen under the control of one of Earth's other mega-corporations; One specializing in military hardware and wetware. While on Earth, David makes hip, edgy teenage friends on the rough streets of LA, who help him and his father after the two help them resolve a long-standing gang turf war.
  -------
  Continue with script generation? [y/n] n
  Delete all temporary files and evidence?[y/n] y
  Done
34. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:39 · Score: 0
  
  The plot holes weren't the worst, the infantile characters and the awful acting ruined it beyond any chance of repair. They were so bad even the plot was only mildly irritating by comparison.
35. Re:Oh God No... by blue9steel · 2015-02-27 04:44 · Score: 1
  
  But those are not human hands.
  Well, not Human 1.0 anyways.
36. Re:Oh God No... by Plunky · 2015-02-27 04:45 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old ... I just don't see how they get there at all. He's not just a hunter of them, he is one.
  So either they start this one in which Deckard isn't a replicant, and they'll piss off the fans of the movie. Or they'll have to treat very carefully to explain it.
  
  Of course, there is an easy way around this.. just because it is now 30+ years after the release of Blade Runner, doesn't mean that this amount of time has passed in that world. Deckard could only be 3 years older, and be deteriorating rapidly.
37. Re:Oh God No... by gstoddart · 2015-02-27 04:52 · Score: 1
  
  But those are not human hands.
  Well, they are and they aren't.
  The GP has a point, they are biological in nature, not mechanical.
  Sebastian was a bio-engineer, and said he suffered the same problem as the replicants, premature aging.
  So, they're not robots. But "more human than human", which means some of our limitations have been removed, but still built out of the same stuff.
  It was never clear in the movie if the replicants ever started out as "babies", or sort of started out fully formed ... so to answer the GPs question about how we know they don't age ... I guess we don't, because we don't know much about their lifecycle, other than they don't live very long.
  It could be an interesting movie. Cynically, I fear it is just there to make more money and not tell a good story.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
38. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:57 · Score: 0
  
  Directly from the movie:
  They are so human that their creators can not distinguish them from other humans.
  More human than human is the motto of the corporation that creates them.
  They are not in any way robots.
  If they had kept their hands in those environments long enough there would have been problems.
  Bullets stop them just fine, they can't jump off buildings. They are just extremely sturdy humans.
39. Re:Oh God No... by invid · 2015-02-27 04:59 · Score: 1
  
  Meanwhile, at Bizcock Studios: "Ya see, they made two Roy Battys, and one of them did figure out how to stop the incept date, so he lived and he grew old. Ya see, we bring back Rutger Hauer, and that's why he's old, because he stopped the incept date. And we can bring back Daryl Hanna, but she only has one eye, because she looks bad-ass with an eye-patch. And Harrison Ford is out living in the woods and he's happy, and he has a beautiful daughter played by Jennifer Lawrence who is also a mixed martial arts fighter. And Rutger Hauer is leading an army of replicants, just like Battlestar Galactica, and they come to destroy humanity, and they're being controlled by a central brain inside a worm-hole, and Jennifer Lawrence has to send a nuclear bomb through the worm hole."
  
  --
  The Moore-Murphy Law: The number of things that will go wrong will double every 2 years.
40. Re:Oh God No... by sir-gold · 2015-02-27 05:05 · Score: 1
  
  He was a top-secret prototype of a new type of replicant that could live much longer.
41. Re:Oh God No... by arth1 · 2015-02-27 05:06 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Leon puts his hand in freezing liquid without a problem.
  Pris puts her hand in boiling water without a problem.
  I always thought those were more to show that the replicants had more control over their human++ bodies, being able to bypass feeling pain, or inflict it on themselves voluntarily, like Roy Batty did with the nail.
  It would be interesting to see a Blade Runner 2 with Sean Young. What I don't want to see is yet another long overdue sequel where they have kept the male characters but replaced the female characters with younger eye candy. For some reason, women aging appears to be a taboo in Hollywood, and one I thinks needs to die.
42. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:13 · Score: 0
  
  In all fairness, they could use the same CGI they did with Jeff Bridges for Tron: Legacy.
43. Re:Oh God No... by Defenestrar · 2015-02-27 05:15 · Score: 1
  
  This is the problem inherent with a small sample size. For years everyone thought Temple of Doom was the outlier and when another in that vein came out they also called it an outlier - but that makes two outliers out of four. However, the larger the sample size the more representative an average will be of the series. So as much a fan of the series that I am, I must objectively conclude that the series is of less quality than I'd previously thought. I don't have a problem with that. While I appreciate gourmet desserts, I'm not so stuck on the purity of culinary art that I can't enjoy fast food milkshakes. I think the same applies to Dr. Jones and to Decker as well. That said, I'm hoping for sprinkles and a cherry.
44. Re:Oh God No... by gomiam · 2015-02-27 05:21 · Score: 1
  
  Independence day also had a few seconds shot with Jeff Goldblum explaining why he could introduce the virus to the alien ship but it made way for a shot of a nutricious Coca-Cola product.
  Did it? I actually remember seeing the explanation (something about their building an interface to our satellites meant that we could send a virus back).
45. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:23 · Score: 0
  
  How about the Deckard in the new movie is the *original* Deckard, the human one. The one that we saw in the earlier movie was a replicant based off of him. Perhaps one of many.
46. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:23 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  OMG, you have to be kidding! I've never seen another film where characters charge so stupidly ahead into the face of the unknown.
  Part of what made Alien superior to other space monster movies was the believability of the crew. They really come across as average working stiffs who find themselves in deep doo-doo, and proceed with caution because they don't understand what they're dealing with.
  In Prometheus, every single character was a total idiot when it comes to exploring the unknown... none of them died fast enough for me!
47. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:31 · Score: 0
  
  Your wife is communist.
48. Re:Oh God No... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2015-02-27 05:34 · Score: 1
  
  With shortened lifespans, too. Was Deckard a replicant?
  "It's too bad she won't live. But who does?"
  Deckard: Meeeeeeeeeee!
  
  --
  (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
49. Re:Oh God No... by mrex · 2015-02-27 05:44 · Score: 1
  
  It would be interesting to see a Blade Runner 2 with Sean Young.
  Sean Young's lack of work has nothing to do with her looks (hope I look half that good at her age), and a lot to do with her being a raging alcoholic and major drama queen. The ravishingly gorgeous and talented lady established a pretty legendary reputation as THE hot mess of the movie industry back in the 80s, and age appears to have done little to mellow things: she got arrested at an Oscars after-party in 2012 for misdemeanor assault on one of the other guests.
50. Re:Oh God No... by mrex · 2015-02-27 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  But Decker and Rachel where not N6s.
  Sorry, what makes you say that?
51. Re:Oh God No... by mrex · 2015-02-27 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Will Deckard's superior Nexus 6 brain cause him to run perpendicular to the giant ring rolling in his direction in a straight line? If so, at least marginally happier than I was at the end of that stinker.
52. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:59 · Score: 0
  
  easy. old ford is a new replicant who only thinks he's aged many decades since the previous movie.
53. Re:Oh God No... by RabidReindeer · 2015-02-27 06:00 · Score: 1
  
  And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old ... I just don't see how they get there at all. He's not just a hunter of them, he is one.
  But that's the great thing about it. Since Deckard is a replicant and replicants have early expiration dates, you could use a 70-year old Harrison Ford and set it a year in the future from the original and it would be perfectly realistic!
  The predictable script would in fact, have Ford on the run in a role reversal with a younger person as replicant hunter. Hopefully, though we'd be allowed something more original.
  While they're at it, though, I wouldn't object if someone made a movie of the REAL "Blade Runner". The one by Alan E. Nourse.
54. Re:Oh God No... by RabidReindeer · 2015-02-27 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  The replicants were sent out to work in hazardous environments out in deep space. Presumably they had all sorts of customizations provided to assist in doing the job.
55. Re:Oh God No... by skaralic · 2015-02-27 06:12 · Score: 1
  
  It was not said that ALL replicants live four years. The Nexus 6 were. But Decker and Rachel where not N6s.
  Apparently those have bad battery live and don't perform as well as the Nexus 5s. :p
56. Re:Oh God No... by The+Rizz · 2015-02-27 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  So either they start this one in which Deckard isn't a replicant, and they'll piss off the fans of the movie.
  I'd say that Deckard is not, and never was, a replicant, and I'll be pissed off if they try say he was one. I've never gotten this assertion that he's a replicant, since so much of what's the in movie points to him not being one, and how much better the story and symbolism is if he isn't.
57. Re:Oh God No... by MouseR · 2015-02-27 06:21 · Score: 1
  
  It is said in the movie that Rachel was "an experiment, nothing more". That she did not know what it was. This contrasts with the N6s which where in service. Not a mere experiment.
  Doesn't explain why Leon likes his precious photos, giving that he what what he was. But that's not the only hole in the plot.
58. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 06:22 · Score: 0
  
  "It's too bad she won't live. But then again who does?"
  That line basically says that deckard will die as well.
59. Re:Oh God No... by painandgreed · 2015-02-27 06:44 · Score: 1
  
  And, unless they somehow account for how Deckard the replicant has grown old ... I just don't see how they get there at all.
  "'More human than human' is our motto. Here we have replicants that are so human they think they are human. Most, even with programming, come to realize what they really are. These are not as powerful as the Nexus 6 which allows for a longer life span, and they even age. Our goal is to eventually build them so their internal mechanics will allow them to self replicate. Imagine that. Replicants that are self replicating and believing they are human, perform any function that we might require a human to do but without as much discontent because we can program and control their moods, beliefs, and desires so much more than that of a human."
60. Re:Oh God No... by painandgreed · 2015-02-27 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Leon puts his hand in freezing liquid without a problem.
  Pris puts her hand in boiling water without a problem.
  I always thought those were more to show that the replicants had more control over their human++ bodies, being able to bypass feeling pain, or inflict it on themselves voluntarily, like Roy Batty did with the nail.
  They were to show the superior to human abilities, same as Zhora kicking and screaming on the ground after having been shot multiple times with a BFG. they punch through metal, they take great abuse, they are certainly portrayed as being superhuman in their abilities.
61. Re:Oh God No... by phorm · 2015-02-27 06:56 · Score: 1
  
  Taken on its own, yes. As part of the Alien series it was a bit weak.
62. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 06:58 · Score: 0
  
  The simple fact of the matter is that any two computers or networks can be made to interface with the correct adapter hardware and the proper software. They'd had a sample of the alien hardware for a few decades. They *wrote* the software. The only unrealistic portion of the virus scheme is the timeline in which they did it, and that's peanuts compared to the premise that the aliens showed up in the first place.
63. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  > It was not said that ALL replicants live four years. The Nexus 6 were. But Decker and Rachel where not N6s.
  Bryant: "Now, there's a Nexus 6 over at the Tyrell Corporation. I want you to go put the machine on it."
64. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 07:10 · Score: 0
  
  I would like to see Ridley Scott do a big production of a HP Lovecraft story
  yea, baby
65. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 07:15 · Score: 0
  
  I know right? Jane Seymore is in her 60's and I would not hesitate to pound the fucking stuffing outta that.
66. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 07:36 · Score: 0
  
  My kids have recently watched all the Indy movies, and my wife maintains that Crystal Skull was better than Temple of Doom. Not sure how I am supposed to keep living with that information...
  Of course you'll keep living, it's just one of the many things that your wife has-been/is/will-be right about... ;^)
  (only this time she really is right)...
67. Re:Oh God No... by bruce_the_loon · 2015-02-27 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  No weaker than Alien 3 and certainly miles ahead of Resurrection.
  The scientists in Resurrection take the prize for absolute idiots, unlike the prospectors in Prometheus, they had no excuse for their poor scientific techniques. They knew what the aliens were like and they still failed to take proper precautions for containment and disposal.
  
  --
  Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
68. Re:Oh God No... by Princeofcups · 2015-02-27 07:46 · Score: 1
  
  I still believe in Ridley Scott, even if I'm the only person on god's green earth that liked Prometheus. So Charlize Theron is not an ambi-turner; so what?
  Why does everyone thing that Ridley Scott is the genius behind Alien? The real genius behind that movie was Dan O'Bannon. Nothing that Ridley or that hack Cameron did is canon in my not so humble opinion. And no the "alien" is not a race, it is a weapon. Please get that straight.
  
  --
  The only thing worse than a Democrat is a Republican.
69. Re:Oh God No... by OhSoLaMeow · 2015-02-27 07:52 · Score: 1
  
  The Usenet Oracle would be proud. *sniff*
  
  --
  They can take my LifeAlert pendant when they pry it from my cold dead fingers.
70. Re:Oh God No... by moeinvt · 2015-02-27 08:05 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  The unicorn dream is obviously the strongest bit of evidence that Deckard is a replicant.
  There's also the little hint when Rachael asks him if he's ever taken the VK test himself.
  When the police first hire him, he's told that SIX replicants hijacked the shuttle and one got fried running through a force field. He then gets info about Leon, Roy, Pris and Zora ... so where's #6?
  Deckard always seems to be physically out-classed by the replicants, which is evidence that he's not one of them, but he also takes a hell of a beating, which indicates that he might be.
  Gaff tells Deckard "You've done a man's job."
71. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 08:11 · Score: 0
  
  How about because Deckard doesn't have super powers like the N6 shown in the movie? He is for all appearances human. "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long" - ie if you give a replicant super powers like the N6, it will wear out faster.
72. Re:Oh God No... by PRMan · 2015-02-27 08:35 · Score: 1
  
  This is actually the most successful formula for a sequel. Exactly the same, but slightly different.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
73. Re:Oh God No... by PRMan · 2015-02-27 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  Ha ha that's hilarious. Like somebody in Hollywood could use a command-line interface... Good one!
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
74. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  > And no the "alien" is not a race, it is a weapon. Please get that straight.
  Exqueeze me, but there is nothing in the first film to indicate that.
  There's no reason to think they're evolved for anything but survival and reproduction in a very ruthless way, or that the "space jockey" race (who were a true alien race, not giant pale humans - please get that straight) had anything to do with creating them. All that crap was dreamed up later after they played the weapon card in Aliens when Burke argues that the organism would be worth a lot to the Company's bioweapons division.
75. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 09:18 · Score: 0
  
  You fool...
  It is stated that they can implant memories into the replicants. Future Deckard can still be a replicant (if he ever was one), just manufactured to look older and implanted with the memories as if he had lived that long.
  Maybe there have been 20 Deckards, each living for three years, with memories from one copy inserted into the next.
  I always laugh when someone says "you can't do this, because..." when talking about science fiction.
76. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 09:20 · Score: 0
  
  Saying Prometheus was better than Alien Resurrection is really damning it with faint praise.
  The production values were outstanding, but the script was utter shite!
77. Re:Oh God No... by SeaFox · 2015-02-27 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  It is said in the movie that Rachel was "an experiment, nothing more". That she did not know what it was.
  Didn't Bryant send Decker to Tyrell's HQ because there was Nexus 6 there, which led to him running Voight-Kampff on Rachel?
78. Re:Oh God No... by mrex · 2015-02-27 10:03 · Score: 1
  
  It is said in the movie that Rachel was "an experiment, nothing more". That she did not know what it was. This contrasts with the N6s which where in service. Not a mere experiment
  I see where you're coming from, but...
  It's a pretty big leap to interpret Tyrell's guarded/teasing response to Deckard's question about Rachel as meaning that. The experiment he referred to could have been Rachel's (...and Deckard's) lack of self-knowledge. It could have been that the meeting of Rachel and Deckard itself was the experiment - perhaps Tyrell was exploring the depth of N6 emotional capabilities? It could be that the whole darn thing was a setup right down to the rogue N6s as set pieces. Or maybe he was just lying off-the-cuff as a way to dismiss an unexpectedly piercing query by the detective. Honestly *any* of those possibilities seems to fit the storyline better than that Deckard, who did well to hold his own against any Nexus 6 combat model he faced, was some next generation model.
  The storyline in my head goes something like this. Rachel and Deckard were Nexus 6-Xs - experimental models - that Tyrell was using to work out one or both of the line's major design flaws: their emotional instability and/or their limited longevity. This is why Roy and the other N6s are totally aware of their status as replicants, but Rachel and Deckard are not. The experiment that Tyrell is testing is exactly depriving them of the knowledge of their (from the standpoint of individual ego) inferior origin, on the theory that by permitting them to believe themselves human (which, really, they all are) and integrate on an emotional level with the human world. Tyrell suspects this to be true already, but has been in denial heretofore because of what it would mean on a moral level: specifically, that Tyrell is the biggest slave-trader in history, his vaunted empire nothing more than a dark exploitation of life, with his own countless children as debased chattel.
79. Re:Oh God No... by DNS-and-BIND · 2015-02-27 11:42 · Score: 1
  
  Inconvenient truth ahead: trigger warning.
  Nobody wants to see old wrinkled women on the big screen. Even old wrinkled women. Hollywood caters to a global audience these days, and the feelings of western leftists aren't really relevant any more. Sorry it didn't work out for you.
  
  --
  Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
80. Re:Oh God No... by pellik · 2015-02-27 13:01 · Score: 1
  
  Ridley Scott should never have tried to imply that Deckard was a replicant. It's a terrible choice for the movie and it's clearly not in line with the book. The story is about the dehumanization of Deckard while simultaniously humanizing the replicants. Deckard being a replicant just doesn't make sense in that context and ruins the entire point.
81. Re:Oh God No... by pellik · 2015-02-27 13:03 · Score: 1
  
  Make him NOT a replicant?
  How about no.
  You mean not a replicant like he he wasn't one in the story the book was based on? Blasphemy.
82. Re:Oh God No... by The+Rizz · 2015-02-27 14:09 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  The unicorn dream is obviously the strongest bit of evidence that Deckard is a replicant.
  A unicorn is a symbol of a mythical (i.e. man-made) creature of beauty and purity - so it's heavily symbolic for Rachael. The dream is symbolic of Deckard falling in love with Rachael. Gaff's unicorn at the end is also symbolic of Rachael. Also, Gaff's other uses of origami/similar throughout the film are all heavily symbolic of the scene it's placed in - why would this one use be the only one not symbolic?
  
  There's also the little hint when Rachael asks him if he's ever taken the VK test himself.
  More a reference to the book, where the same question comes up, and he has.
  
  When the police first hire him, he's told that SIX replicants hijacked the shuttle and one got fried running through a force field. He then gets info about Leon, Roy, Pris and Zora ... so where's #6?
  Production error. They were originally going to have six (and even had the part cast), but had to cut one for budget reasons, and forgot to change it in the dialogue. This has been fixed in the Final Cut, as they changed the dialogue to having two replicants fried by Tyrel's security grid.
  
  Deckard always seems to be physically out-classed by the replicants, which is evidence that he's not one of them, but he also takes a hell of a beating, which indicates that he might be.
  I'd put this evidence more to him not being one. He even gets his ass kicked by Pris "a pleasure model", and while he takes a hell of a beating it's not past the realm of believability for humans. Also, he doesn't display the ability to ignore pain that the replicants do.
  
  Gaff tells Deckard "You've done a man's job."
  This is a colloquialism that means about the same as "you've done a good day's/hard day's work". It's not meant to imply that anything about the listener not being a man.
  Also, every single writer on the project has said that Deckard was never meant to be a replicant. Plus, there are multiple literary themes that lose their impact if Deckard is a replicant, too.
83. Re:Oh God No... by mrex · 2015-02-27 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  He defeats both the pleasure and assassin models without too much trouble. The brute might have beaten him, although we can't know that for sure. We do know that love saved the day. The only one who definitely would have beaten him was Roy, who is a full-on combat model and vastly experienced, not fresh off the assembly line.
84. Re:Oh God No... by arth1 · 2015-02-27 16:43 · Score: 1
  
  That's a shame, but I think there are plenty of precedents of male actors who have likewise done stupid shit because of the bottle, but have gotten help to get out of it, and given second and third chances.
  Yeah, she still looks good.
  There are many older actresses that still do look great, and who aren't used as much as I think they should be. Like Susan Sarandon, who I think looks so awesome precisely because she has aged naturally, and not been ruined by a plastic surgeon. Diane Keaton and Sally Fields too are easy on the eyes.
  I think it's sad that Hollywood continues to make so many movies with elderly gents in the lead role, but never do you see an elderly woman in a lead role. Even the great looking ones.
85. Re:Oh God No... by antdude · 2015-02-27 20:02 · Score: 1
  
  Or from rbot:
  [12:01am] @movietitle
  12:01AM Ant: Title: LETHAL WARNING XVII
  [12:01am] @movieplot
  12:01AM Ant: Summary: He's an impetuous guerilla sorceror looking for the Big
  One. She's an artistic thirtysomething detective from Mars. They fight crime.
  
  --
  Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
86. Re:Oh God No... by Jack+Griffin · 2015-02-27 21:43 · Score: 1
  
  And since Harrison Ford is significantly visibly older, how the hell is Scott going to rectify THAT?
  You're making the assumption that people who make movies care about such things. Blade Runner 2 is a little pot of gold waiting to be cashed in. That is all that matters. Things like the plot, or the characters, or continuity do not matter.
  
  I'm going to stay the hell away from this movie.
  Wise choice. There is no possible way a sequel can improve the story, it can only make it worse.
87. Re:Oh God No... by mrex · 2015-02-27 23:57 · Score: 1
  
  That's a shame, but I think there are plenty of precedents of male actors who have likewise done stupid shit because of the bottle, but have gotten help to get out of it, and given second and third chances.
  Not all celebrities are created equal, it's true, but I don't think that's a gender thing. Plenty of men cant get work, and plenty of men have gotten blackballed over the years by directors for similar shenanigans. And for what it's worth, I agree both from a sentimental and practical perspective: Sean Young, the ultimate tsundere, has a special place in my heart and that of many others who fell in love with her screen presence in the 80s. That is a very bankable thing, but it takes a professional to cash it in, and she hasn't proven up to the task so far. I wish her really well, believe me.
  There are many older actresses that still do look great, and who aren't used as much as I think they should be. Like Susan Sarandon, who I think looks so awesome precisely because she has aged naturally
  Susan Sarandon is beautiful and one of a kind. I'm not sure I'd class her as hard-up for work, though. Same with Diane Keaton, Sally Fields, Annette Bening, Kathy Bates, and quite a few other great and talented Hollywood ladies. This isn't exactly the 1950s with respect to movie studios' attitudes towards mature women, in fact they're an incredibly reliable, and thus courted, box office demographic.
  I think it's sad that Hollywood continues to make so many movies with elderly gents in the lead role, but never do you see an elderly woman in a lead role. Even the great looking ones.
  I'm probably going to get dagger-stares for it, but here is my two cents. And that's really all it is, but here goes anyway. Part of the thing here is that older women don't necessarily want to be, or see, themselves in the lead role of a film. Be honest, and focus for a second not on the rag-flying co-ed Boudicas at the outskirts of culture today, but the warm-steel wisdom of real American family matriarchs. By and large, they aren't looking for superheros, they're looking for stories that ring true to them and their own experiences.
88. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-01 13:53 · Score: 0
  
  They will probably fall under the control of the Umbrella Corporation, as Hollywood really do seem to love creating a mishmash of franchises in order to tempt the fans from one thoroughly sodomised franchise to spend their money on another, in the vain hope there will be some form of redemption for the fans after what Hollywood has done to what they love.
89. Re:Oh God No... by RivenAleem · 2015-03-01 22:19 · Score: 1
  
  I read this thread and wonder why nobody has mentioned Carrie Fisher. Isn't she returning to Star Wars despite not only aging but also having had a massive drugs and drink phase? Is that not a case where they felt that the only person suitable to play Leia is herself?
  If you wanted to show Harrison Ford as an aged Deckard, but portray Rachel as unaged, you could cast Krysten Ritter in her place. They look similar enough and she could play the character fine I'm sure.
90. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-01 23:47 · Score: 0
  
  It might still be available on youtube. Why they could not find the time to include it is a mystery.
Well that settles it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 02:56 · Score: 1

There is no way a geriatric Deckard could possibly be a replicant
So is he a replicant, or not? by sideslash · 2015-02-27 02:58 · Score: 3, Informative

(Spoiler alert: If you don't know this stuff, then... what are you doing on Slashdot?)

They'd better be careful how they handle this. It's supposed to be decades into the future, and thus after Deckard and Rachel are both supposed to be dead by their targeted end of life engineering as replicants. You know: "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"

Maybe he will be a different iteration of Deckard, i.e. another replicant clone or something.
1. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by halivar · 2015-02-27 03:01 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  I was a big fan of the Deckard-as-replicant conspiracy theory, but it was confirmed in an interview not too many years ago that that was not the case. Deckard is a human, as dull as that may be.
2. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:06 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Scott himself confirmed that Deckard WAS a replicant, also in an interview.
3. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by MobyDisk · 2015-02-27 03:10 · Score: 2
  
  The book and movie are hugely different. So if you like this concept, and have not yet read the book, I highly recommend it.
4. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by rot26 · 2015-02-27 03:47 · Score: 1
  
  The power of the movie was due in large part to the uncertainty of Deckard's origins, and the uncertainty of his fate. Scott's opinion on the matter is valid, but if it were more than an opinion on a character he did not create, he could have made it explicit in the movie, which he did not.
  
  So... opinion.
  
  --
  
  To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
5. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by Applehu+Akbar · 2015-02-27 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  "It's supposed to be decades into the future"
  It was set in 2019, which will probably be the year of the sequel's release. I wonder how they will handle that.
6. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by stjobe · 2015-02-27 04:01 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Deckard and Rachel are both supposed to be dead by their targeted end of life engineering as replicants.
  Only the Nexus 6 replicants had targeted end of life (the 4-year lifespan).
  Deckard and Rachel can thus not be Nexus 6 replicants if they're still alive 4 years later, but they CAN still be another version of replicant .
  
  You know: "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?".
  Humans have an end of life too, you know? We're not exactly immortal.
  
  --
  "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
7. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  > Deckard and Rachel can thus not be Nexus 6 replicants if they're still alive 4 years later,
  What if the sequel is set only 4 years after the original, but Deckard and Rachel appear to have aged 34 years?
8. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by sideslash · 2015-02-27 04:41 · Score: 1
  
  *mind blown*
9. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  First only the Nexus 6 were stated as having a fixed 4 year life span.
  No end dates were given for Rachel and Deckard, if you hold that Deckard is a replicant.
  If like me, the first time you saw the movie, it had the original theatrical voice over, then Rachel has no expiration date.
  Also, with the voice over its much more likely that Deckard is human. Which I think is way better. Since then at least one human being cares about replicants.
  Then the movie has some compassion. If Deckard is a replicant, then he is a soulless assassin killing his own kind with no remorse and no human cares about replicants, or really humans for that matter. Even if Deckard as replicant feels bad about killing replicants, it less out of compassion than out of self interest.
  The heart of the movie is about what it means to be human. Deckard as human asks that question. Deckard as replicant doesn't ask that question.
  This issue is probably why it was left intentionally vague in the movie.
10. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by RabidReindeer · 2015-02-27 06:09 · Score: 1
  
  "It's supposed to be decades into the future"
  It was set in 2019, which will probably be the year of the sequel's release. I wonder how they will handle that.
  Umbrellas with light-up handles will be out of fashion.
11. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by Shortguy881 · 2015-02-27 06:28 · Score: 2
  
  To interject, the extended version of the film leans to the idea that Deckard is a Replicant, while the normal version leaves a level of ambiguity, so it really depends on the version you watched.
  
  --
  Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
12. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by sce7mjm · 2015-02-27 06:58 · Score: 1
  
  I think it works both ways.
  Deckard at the end of any version of the movie might not know if he is a replicant or not.
  Why?
  Because we know that memories can be implanted. By implication memories can be copied.
  In the directors cut Deckard gets told by Gaf via the origami unicorn "I know your memories/dreams..." If Deckard is a replicant, he is running for his life, if he isn't a replicant he is running to protect Rachael, the difference doesn't change his actions. The original release doesn't really rule this out (at least I don't remember it ruling it out) since it is narrated by Deckard himself...
  The point is, in the directors cut at least Deckard no longer knows if he is a replicant or a human who has had his memories copied and shared on the police departments facebook page.
  I also remember seeing some story boards of Roy after killing who he thinks is tyrell finding a room with the originals tyrells tomb since he died years ago and has cloned himself. In my mind the whole point of any of the cuts is that humanity itself is being replicated opening up the question of "immortality".
  Deckard acts like a cold hearted killer, pretty much assaults/takes advantage of Racael, seems like he himself is pretty immature having self control issues and acting on urges. Also some of the cut scenes like when he goes to see Holden (you can find it on youtube i think), holden seems to look at him funny when he doesn't understand why he has been asked to press the button "for the pain asshole".
  Much like a certain Roy Batty who is willing to kill to protect his friends but hasn't learned to control his anger... Seems like both are willing to protect some people whilst not care about others. The lines between human/replicant are very blurred in any case...I have always held sympathy with Roy because of this. Yes he is a psychopath, but not without reason. And kind of thought he showed more humanity than Deckard, precisely because he is fighting for his friends, whereas Deckard is willing to kill because he is told to. But also once it has become pointless to kill Deckard once all his friends are dead and he will die too anyway he saves Deckard, he didn't need to, showing compassion for his enemies.
  There re so many questions that there is plenty of room for a sequel.Perhaps the original Deckard is indeed living off world after retiring...Seeing as he is "the best" perhaps he will be hired to hunt himself down. Maybe there is an aged human Roy running around blowing away replicants with a shotgun.... Quite frankly I'd wet myself if that happened...Even if the film turned out to pants, I'd put it in my Rutger Hauer collection right next to Split Second.
13. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by moeinvt · 2015-02-27 07:32 · Score: 1
  
  I know that there are hints all over the place that he is, but notice that in every scene where he has to fight one of the replicants, he's outclassed. Leon is depicted as being way faster and stronger and Roy seems almost impervious to pain by comparison. Even Pris was giving Deckard a good thrashing before he got his gun. Those encounters always undermined the "Deckard is a replicant" theory IMO.
  I suppose you could argue that the Nexus 7 replicants are designed to be more like humans in their frailties.
14. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 10:19 · Score: 0
  
  Which extended version? There's seven versions in total. This is partly to blame for the replicant theory, in that people choose which version that best fits what they want to believe.
15. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 10:30 · Score: 0
  
  > Scott himself confirmed that Deckard WAS a replicant, also in an interview.
  He also 'confirmed' that Zeta II Reticuli is "actually an existing moon just off Io."
  So.
Blade Walker or Blade Wheelchair? by lectos · 2015-02-27 03:00 · Score: 1

He can't exactly run without CGI and harnesses now can he.
Deckard as Replicant - or not? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:05 · Score: 0

But will Deckard be portrayed as a Replicant? That could open a plot can of worms.
The original plotline held for the first movie. They'll have to come up with something to put a new twist onto the Replicant/5 years/banned for Earth, and with the tendency of movies to foist social issue down our collective metaphysical throats, perhaps a "Replican Rights" thing?
Highlander 2 by DiamondGeezer · 2015-02-27 03:06 · Score: 5, Funny

Highlander 2 Highlander 2 Highlander 2
That's all I'm saying
Highlander 2
Now that's out of my Highlander 2 system I can look Highlander 2 forward to this new movie.
Highlander 2

--
Tubby or not tubby. Fat is the question
1. Re:Highlander 2 by Noah+Haders · 2015-02-27 03:17 · Score: 1
  
  I never saw highlander 2.
2. Re:Highlander 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:30 · Score: 0
  
  "You lucky bastard!"
3. Re:Highlander 2 by Drethon · 2015-02-27 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Particularly one based on the depth created by the tv series. But I think the Highlander tv writers went about as insane as George Lucas once they started writing movies.
4. Re:Highlander 2 by Zappy · 2015-02-27 03:38 · Score: 1
  
  There was a sequel to Highlander?
5. Re:Highlander 2 by Pieroxy · 2015-02-27 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Never do. Trust me. Don't. Ever.
  
  --
  Write boring code, not shiny code!
6. Re:Highlander 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:41 · Score: 0
  
  I never saw highlander 2.
  There should have been only one.
7. Re:Highlander 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:46 · Score: 0
  
  Dear Noah Haders,
  Reading your post gave me a pang of envy. I effing hate your guts now.
8. Re:Highlander 2 by blind+biker · 2015-02-27 03:48 · Score: 1
  
  All you need to know about Highlander 2.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
9. Re:Highlander 2 by sammy+baby · 2015-02-27 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Agreed. Additionally, Highlander 2. AND ALSO HIGHLANDER FUCKING 3.
10. Re:Highlander 2 by stjobe · 2015-02-27 04:03 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  There was a sequel to Highlander?
  No. "There can be only one", remember?
  
  --
  "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
11. Re:Highlander 2 by Kjella · 2015-02-27 04:16 · Score: 1
  
  That's all I'm saying
  Now that's out of my system I can look forward to this new movie.
  I have no idea what you're talking about.
  
  --
  Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
12. Re:Highlander 2 by jratcliffe · 2015-02-27 05:10 · Score: 1
  
  I think you mean "there should have been, only one."
13. Re:Highlander 2 by gstoddart · 2015-02-27 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  There were actually two.
  The second sequel pretended the stupid, implausible script from the first sequel had never happened. And then it produced it's own stupid implausible script.
  For all purposes of discussion, anything which claims to be a sequel to Highlander doesn't exist to anybody except the people who wrote them.
  Highlander was a story which really couldn't have a sequel, nor should it have. It was beautifully complete on its own, and should have stayed that way.
  Even the TV series technically couldn't have existed without pretending the movie didn't happen, but then they still brought in the original guy eventually and did some strange stuff.
  There can be only one.
  
  --
  Lost at C:>. Found at C.
14. Re:Highlander 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 07:20 · Score: 0
  
  Try the director's cut of Highlander 2 some time. It fits with the others just fine.
15. Re:Highlander 2 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 16:05 · Score: 0
  
  Highlander 2
  No, that does not exist. When it comes to Highlander, there can be only 1.
Who is this director? by RogueWarrior65 · 2015-02-27 03:06 · Score: 1

I've never seen any of this directors movies. What make him qualified to work on this?
1. Re:Who is this director? by Noah+Haders · 2015-02-27 03:19 · Score: 1
  
  Umm he did the original BL and aliens and Gladiator and Exidus and 2001 and eyes wide shut. I think he has lots of chops!
2. Re:Who is this director? by Monkey-Man2000 · 2015-02-27 03:22 · Score: 1
  
  I've never seen any of this directors movies. What make him qualified to work on this?
  He's not Ridley Scott, and therefore Harrison Ford would potentially be able to put up with him long enough to make another Blade Runner movie. Supposedly, a principal reason why this movie has been delayed so long was because of how much Harrison hated working with Ridley.
  
  --
  This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
3. Re:Who is this director? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:23 · Score: 0
  
  You are beyond wrong.
4. Re:Who is this director? by Major+Blud · 2015-02-27 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic or confusing Ridley Scott with the director (right there in the summary):
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...
  FWIW, I haven't seen any of his movies.
  
  --
  If you post as Anonymous Coward, don't expect a reply.
5. Re:Who is this director? by The+Grim+Reefer · 2015-02-27 03:27 · Score: 1
  
  Stanley Kubrick, Ridley Scott, meh same thing. Didn't he do Dune and Eraserhead too?
6. Re:Who is this director? by Zappy · 2015-02-27 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  I tried to watch 'Enemy'. I failed, it was excruciating boring and slow paced. Characters where flat and the surprise plot was not so much a surprise.
  If it gets the crystal skull treatment, it will be entertaining (while insulting your iq) if it will be anything like Enemy it will be hard to stay awake long enough to criticize it.
7. Re:Who is this director? by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 07:15 · Score: 1
  
  What makes half the directors in Hollywood qualified to do anything other than direct cat videos for Youtube?
  Dennis Villeneuve is a talented director without any doubt. While I agree the Enemy was way too art house/ intellectual film experiment to be considered "enjoyable", Prisoner was very well done movie. Some would complain Prisoners was too long, but then again, some people can't sit still for more than 5 minutes unless an explosion or a car chase is happening on-screen. For people who like movies and don't like being treated like mouth breathers, (which generally seems to be the Blade Runner demographic) Villeneuve is just the right kind of director for a sequel.
  Whether or not a sequel should even be made is a different topic altogether. Just be thankful George Lucas isn't somehow involved; with his grubby little cash filled hands, forcing CGI animals down your throat for no reason.
What about Vangelis for the soundtrack by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:09 · Score: 1

No mention if Vangelis will be doing the soundtrack for the new movie. I listen to the Vangelis soundtrack from the original movie all the time, and it just doesn't get old.
I decided that I simply won't watch it by blind+biker · 2015-02-27 03:14 · Score: 4, Interesting

For me, Blade Runner is an awesome cinematic and intellectual experience, and I did read the "short" story by PK Dick, and loved that also in slightly different ways.
The original Blade Runner was made in a decade when this kind of intellectualism in cinema was still going strong. After the 90s, it all but disappeared. There is NO WAY they can make a decent sequen of an 80s intellectual sci-fi movie today. Maybe they never could have.

--
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
1. Re:I decided that I simply won't watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  I simply won't watch it, because I believe it's poaching on the intellectual work of Philip K. Dick.
  (Somehow my my account on Slashdot seems to have dissappeared - that's kind of a Dickean premise. Hrm.)
  At one point the managers of his estate were very careful and proprietary with his works, and for that I was grateful. Whether they've given permisison for this new work, or somehow it's being brought to screen through some loophole in IP law, I believe it's wrong. Wrong in the sense that it's a misuse of his IP, wrong in the sense that I don't believe a good story can or will be built from the ending of the original, and wrong because it will undermine the original film and undermine Mr. Dick's larger legacy.
2. Re:I decided that I simply won't watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:20 · Score: 1
  
  I watched an interview with Rutger Hauer sometime in the 1990s. He was doing a press tour for some totally average action movie. He was totally into it, and he looked cool as a cucumber.
  Then all of a sudden the interview changed. It went something like this.
  Interviewer: Do you think your acting in this movie was great? Is this one of your great roles?
  Hauer suddenly grew thoughtful. He leaned back in his seat.
  Hauer: No... I truly believe you get a chance to be great only once in your career. I was in Blade Runner, and I was great.
3. Re:I decided that I simply won't watch it by bledri · 2015-02-27 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  I simply won't watch it, because I believe it's poaching on the intellectual work of Philip K. Dick.
  ...
  Everything is a remix. It will be a better world when we admit it. Though this is more likely a case of using name recognition as marketing than creating something new from something old. I'll wait for the reviews to decide whether to give them any money for their efforts.
  
  --
  Some privacy policy Slashdot.
4. Re:I decided that I simply won't watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Hauer suddenly grew thoughtful. He leaned back in his seat.
  Hauer: No... I truly believe you get a chance to be great only once in your career. I was in Blade Runner, and I was great.
  I dunno, he was pretty damn good as a shotgun-wielding hobo.
5. Re:I decided that I simply won't watch it by mrex · 2015-02-27 05:53 · Score: 2
  
  undermine Mr. Dick's larger legacy
  I LOVE LOVE LOVE PKD, but PKD had basically zero popular legacy to undermine before Ridley Scott got ahold of "Do Androids Dream..." and made it into something rather different. The world has Ridley Scott to thank for waking us up to his works.
6. Re:I decided that I simply won't watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 07:18 · Score: 0
  
  This is simply not true. Dick was well known in the same circles as the people who were actually willing to watch (and wound up liking) Blade Runner. So no idea what you're getting at. Perhaps Scott widened the exposure, but Dick has Scott to credit for all the popularity of his work? I think that's stretching it quite a bit.
7. Re:I decided that I simply won't watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 09:10 · Score: 0
  
  I feel some credit is also due to Paul Verhoeven.
8. Re:I decided that I simply won't watch it by mrex · 2015-02-27 14:09 · Score: 1
  
  Dick was well known in the same circles as the people who were actually willing to watch (and wound up liking) Blade Runner.
  Q: How many Hollywood movies were based on PKD works *prior* to Blade Runner?
  A: Zero.
  Q: How many Hollywood movies have been based on PKD works *after* Blade Runner?
  A: Eleven.
  If that's not breaking ground, I don't know what you call breaking ground.
9. Re: I decided that I simply won't watch it by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-28 01:05 · Score: 0
  
  There is hope. Ex Machina is an excellent involving and engaging treatment of a similar idea.
That's the problem with a sequel. by khasim · 2015-02-27 03:17 · Score: 1

If you watch the original with the understanding that Deckard is a replicant then the unicorn origami and the ending have specific, complex, implications.
Now if the sequel shows Deckard as a human then they piss off everyone who prefers those implications. So, in effect, the sequel ruins the story for some people.
If the sequel shows Deckard as an aged replicant ... robots get old? So replicant Deckard is either killed or kills or runs away again at the end. ALREADY BEEN DONE IN THE FIRST MOVIE!
1. Re:That's the problem with a sequel. by rot26 · 2015-02-27 03:37 · Score: 1
  
  Robot? I suspect you're thinking of some other movie; Terminator perhaps.
  
  --
  
  To ensure perfect aim, shoot first and call whatever you hit the target
2. Re:That's the problem with a sequel. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:36 · Score: 0
  
  > If you watch the original with the understanding that Deckard is a replicant then the unicorn origami and the ending have specific, complex, implications.
  The "original," i.e. theatrical cut, didn't have the unicorn dream... therefore the origami unicorn was no more than evidence that Gaff had been there.
  I think it's funny that people argue so vehemently over whether Deckard was a replicant. One of the film's major themes is the replicants wondering "are we human" vs. Deckard wondering if he's any better than a replicant if he lacks empathy.
3. Re:That's the problem with a sequel. by blind+biker · 2015-02-27 06:55 · Score: 1
  
  If you watch the original with the understanding that Deckard is a replicant then the unicorn origami and the ending have specific, complex, implications.
  Now if the sequel shows Deckard as a human then they piss off everyone who prefers those implications. So, in effect, the sequel ruins the story for some people.
  If the sequel shows Deckard as an aged replicant ... robots get old?
  But replicants aren't robots - they are made from the same exact biochemical structures as humans. In effect, there is not much to distinguish them from humans, from a biochemical POV, and hence, if their timespan isn't artificially limited, they can live longer than 4 years and then age, as they are made of cells in which the same processes take place as in humans.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Nobeta? by fallen1 · 2015-02-27 03:30 · Score: 1

Can I have my nobeta back? Because this shit is nearly impossible to read and is not formatted in an acceptable way. This is worse than all the internal monologues Deckard has in Blade Runner.

--
Dream as if you'll live forever.
Live as if you'll die tomorrow.
~Anonymous~
Predicitions by Marginal+Coward · 2015-02-27 03:30 · Score: 1

In the new film, Harrison Ford again will appear as Decker, and again will be assigned to chase down replicants overdue for termination. This time, though, the drama revolves around the difficulties faced by a now-geriatric Decker - things such as repeatedly losing his reading glasses, and his painful and frustrating prostate problems. Not to mention gas.
Then of course, there's the obvious mobility problem faced by an aging Ford/Decker. Fortunately, the mid-21st century has a tried-and-true solution for that, which will be the real focus of the film. To that end, the title will, of course, be "Blade Walker." Look for special effects in the form of tennis balls on the bottom.
1. Re:Predicitions by wonkey_monkey · 2015-02-27 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  tennis balls on the bottom.
  Isn't that a deleted scene from Fifty Shades of Grey?
  Actually that may not have been "on"...
  
  --
  systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
2. Re:Predicitions by blind+biker · 2015-02-27 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  A gassy Harrison Ford would probably elevate that sequel, rather than damage it. It would cross genres into comedy, but eh, that's not the worst that could happen.
  
  --
  "The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
This Can't End Well by WheezyJoe · 2015-02-27 03:50 · Score: 3, Funny

Blade Runner was a self-contained story. To my knowledge, Philip K. Dick didn't have a follow-up, and that means some Hollywood types are going to hash and re-hash sequel formulas that lure in the nostalgia crowd (1982 for chrissakes) and a whole new audience looking for their sci-fi blockbuster fix. Seriously, how can this possibly be good?
Most likely, some new replicant crisis will occur, bigger and badder than before, the Tyrell corporation will have a new head who's more morally ambiguous than before or even downright evil (Tyrell Jr.?), and Deckard has to be lured out of retirement somewhere, still mourning the death of Rachel, because somehow he has the key to solving the problem. An army of super Nexus 50 replicants have escaped from Tyrell's labs. Face-dancer replicants mind-controlled by the corporation have managed to take over key government posts undetected. The President himself may be a replicant, plotting to destroy all humans. Only Deckard has the uncanny talent to ferret them out.
There'll be explosions. Spaceships on fire. Flying cars with no wires visible. A soundtrack by Moby. And since Harrison Ford is so old, his love interest is his daughter by Rachel, with hidden super powers key to solving the crisis, threatened with retirement unless Deckard does what he's told! Edward James Olmos make his triumphant return as Gaff! You know I got at least some of this right.

--
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
1. Re: This Can't End Well by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 04:07 · Score: 0
  
  Attack ships on fire to warm up Orion's cold shoulder...
2. Re:This Can't End Well by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:57 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  Philip never wrote a sequel to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, but K.W. Jeter (a friend of his) did write several.
  Blade_Runner_2:_The_Edge_of_Human among others. I have never read any of them despite being a fan of both writers.
3. Re:This Can't End Well by Jack+Griffin · 2015-02-27 22:11 · Score: 1
  
  There'll be explosions. Spaceships on fire. Flying cars with no wires visible. A soundtrack by Moby. And since Harrison Ford is so old, his love interest is his daughter by Rachel, with hidden super powers key to solving the crisis, threatened with retirement unless Deckard does what he's told! Edward James Olmos make his triumphant return as Gaff! You know I got at least some of this right.
  And don't forget merchandising! Get a free Deckard doll with every McHappy meal!
4. Re: This Can't End Well by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-28 01:15 · Score: 0
  
  PKD doesn't have a follow-up, but the movie hardly follows the book..If it's anything like Scott's other output we'll have a PKD/Niven/Heinlein mashup of superhumans. See also Prometheus -which is very nearly a Pak film - pretty sure Prometheus II will have the big reveal.
Will we see the famous clear raincoat by mallyn · 2015-02-27 03:59 · Score: 1

Will the woman come running back in her famous clear raincoat?

--
Most Respectfully Yours Mark Allyn Bellingham, Washington
Please Don't by CMOS4081 · 2015-02-27 04:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

Dear Hollywood, stop being about the money and focus on being about the art. Trying to milk more money by making reboots/prequels and sequels to old classics of passed golden days is disrespecting the people involved in the original films. No need to reboot or prequel Blade Runner/Alien/The Thing. They were perfect for their time and still carry their weight today. If you want to make a quick buck on cheesy popcorn movies throw a bone to The Wachowskis or Michael bay but leave the classics alone.
1. Re:Please Don't by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  Stop?
  When was it not about the money?
2. Re:Please Don't by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  Dear Walking Wallet,
  No.
  Love,
  Hollywood.
3. Re:Please Don't by phorm · 2015-02-27 07:07 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I was very excited about the Ghostbusters sequel - been waiting *years* for one - until I heard what they're actually going to do with it.
  Blah.
4. Re:Please Don't by Jack+Griffin · 2015-02-27 22:15 · Score: 1
  
  I'm really surprised there is no Top Gun 2 out and about. That is one that is prime for the picking. Cheesy story to start with so nothing lost by creating a sequel. Ryan Gosling would make an equally cheesy Tom Cruise, and Tom Cruise could play the Jester role. Throw in some 911 and Gulf war references and it's a guaranteed winner.
How do you post a comment? by tekrat · 2015-02-27 04:34 · Score: 1

There's no button except "reply to this"

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
2017 by tekrat · 2015-02-27 04:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

The film is going into production in 2016, which means that it won't see theaters until at least 2017 == THE YEAR THE ORIGINAL MOVIE TAKES PLACE IN.
That means this is no longer a sequel to a sci-fi movie, it's a straight up drama taking place in contemporary times.
And while Blade Runner got a lot right, Deckard makes a video-phone call from a phone booth because in 1980 no-one imagined a smart phone. Will they be using cell-phones in this sequel or will they keep to cannon?
And, having just seen the 2014 Robocop movie; I can honestly say that this upcoming film won't get anything right, as Robocop was a dull, i repeat dull action movie, missing everything that made the original one of the finest films of all time. There was no satire, no pathos, no snarky jabs at the media and American consumerism, and no humor. It was terrible. All it was, was a reminder of how utterly brilliant the original was.
My guess is that after this sequel comes out, we'll be trying to 'unsee it' and waxing poetic about how original and thought provoking the original was, and how flat, and full of fail this film is.

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1. Re:2017 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:42 · Score: 0
  
  Will they be using cell-phones in this sequel or will they keep to cannon?
  
  Well it depends on if they are smooth-bore or rifled. Although it seems like an inefficient way of communicating.
2. Re:2017 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:55 · Score: 0
  
  you're right.. but you're also wrong.. harrison ford is a lot older now, so it'll have to be set in like 2246 or something to match what the old fart looks like these days.
3. Re:2017 by PRMan · 2015-02-27 08:45 · Score: 1
  
  Robocop was worse.
  Manchurian Candidate was worse.
  Total Recall was hideously worse.
  Everyone hated the Star Wars prequels, but as these things go (and as beloved as Star Wars was), they really weren't THAT bad.
  Not holding out much hope for this.
  
  --
  Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
4. Re:2017 by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 10:53 · Score: 0
  
  And, having just seen the 2014 Robocop movie; I can honestly say that this upcoming film won't get anything right, as Robocop was a dull, i repeat dull action movie, missing everything that made the original one of the finest films of all time.
  You went to a remake of a sci-fi action movie. What did you expect, high drama? Repeatedly creating novelty (and hence enjoyment from said novelty) is difficult. Accept your punishment, and hopefully learn from it.
  You do understand the concept of bleeding a franchise to death? Media companies and English departments have been doing it for centuries. (I'll leave whether the ancient Greek writers were original or copy-cats out of this discussion)
  Unrelated comment: Economics is a bitch for slow learners of life's lessons.
5. Re:2017 by cavebison · 2015-03-01 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  > My guess is that after this sequel comes out, we'll be trying to 'unsee it' and waxing poetic about how original and thought provoking the original was, and how flat, and full of fail this film is.
  The tragedy is, it's obvious that if they really cared about these movies, they wouldn't even attempt to make sequels. They don't care, they just see the sequels as bankable. Producing soul-destroying sequels to original masterpieces still makes lots of money, as Lucas very effectively revealed. The fact they're doing a sequel at all means they don't care, which is a shame. As such, it deserves to be shunned, but it won't be.
deckard by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:14 · Score: 0

its been a while since i have seen the movie, but correct me if im wrong, it never says anywhere in the movie that deckard is a replicant. you just assume he is and ridley scott has never admitted that he is one.
1. Re:deckard by moeinvt · 2015-02-27 07:13 · Score: 1
  
  Well, at least as far as the film plots are concerned, we now know he's not a Nexus 6 replicant. Four year lifespan.
  The original film dropped many hints that he was, but every time he got near one of the replicants he got his ass kicked, so I never assumed it.
  IIRC, the book is ambiguous on the point.
When it's REALLY bad by WheezyJoe · 2015-02-27 05:18 · Score: 1

after this sequel comes out, we'll be trying to 'unsee it' .
Very much this. Only a bad sequel or reboot has the power to leave you so disappointed that you wish you could purge your memory of it.
I've managed to forget nearly everything of The Crow 2, City of Angels (except walking out of the theater) and the Lost in Space reboot. Still working on forgetting Kick Ass 2, Ghostbusters 2, Alien 3, Phantom Menace, and Star Trek 5. Knew better than to see Highlander 2, SpiderToby 2-3, Alien Resurrection, the Robocop reboot, Attack of the Clones... such movies should come with a Warning that they may make you feel genuinely resentful for the money, time, and date you'll never get back.

--
Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
1. Re:When it's REALLY bad by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2015-02-27 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I'm still trying to forget that.
2. Re:When it's REALLY bad by WheezyJoe · 2015-02-27 06:02 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I'm still trying to forget that.
  Yep, that was a stinker. I managed to avoid it. Learned my lesson from Last Crusade.
  
  --
  Take it easy, Charlie, I've got an Angle...
3. Re:When it's REALLY bad by H0p313ss · 2015-02-27 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Don't forget Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. I'm still trying to forget that.
  Yep, that was a stinker. I managed to avoid it. Learned my lesson from Last Crusade.
  Crystal Skull made Last Crusade look good. At least it had a damned Zeppelin in it.
  
  --
  XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
hmm by CosaNostra+Pizza+Inc · 2015-02-27 05:24 · Score: 1

*raises an eyebrow* Somehow I doubt it will be as good as the original. For one thing, the first was based on the PKD novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep", which raised thought provoking questions. What will the movie sequel be based on?...more of the same?
1. Re:hmm by Monkey-Man2000 · 2015-02-27 06:53 · Score: 1
  
  Blade Runner 2? Not likely though...
  
  --
  This post was generated by a Cadre of Uber Monkeys for Monkey-Man2000 (603495).
Too Old to Play the Ingenue by rssrss · 2015-02-27 05:39 · Score: 1

I assume that the character of the protagonist in movie will be Rick Deckard III, who will played by some hunky young guy, and Ford will play his grandfather. Maybe they can get Sean Young to play his grandmother.

--
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
In other news... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 05:52 · Score: 0

Hollywood is still out of ideas.
It's a better story if he isn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 06:09 · Score: 0

Well if you didn't pay attention to the clues throughout the film then the movie isn't as good. It's only when you realize that Deckard is also a replicant that the movie takes on a different deeper meaning.
Strongly disagree.
The relationship between Deckard and Rachel works better if he is human. The idea of a human Blade Runner coming to love what he was trained to destroy is tragic and redemptive. What's more, Deckard's acceptance of her as a real person in spite of his prejudice validates that the replicants are as human as anyone. That was the point of Do Androids Dream....
The Deckant idea is just a cheap mind-screw twist more worthy of M Night Shyamalan. "And you were one of them all along!" As clever as the clues are, it detracts from the overall story.
1. Re:It's a better story if he isn't. by painandgreed · 2015-02-27 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Strongly disagree.
  The relationship between Deckard and Rachel works better if he is human. The idea of a human Blade Runner coming to love what he was trained to destroy is tragic and redemptive.
  Ya, right. Watch the original test viewing version sometime. It becomes obvious that Deckard is just a lonely, selfish man who finds himself with a woman that has to side with him because her life is at stake. Complete with near rape scene where he corners her and makes her say she loves him because to do otherwise would most certainly mean her death. There was certainly a reason they added the narration to what was the theatrical version, and that's because the original version was a little too dark and noir. It's softened by the narration, but he's still running off with a woman that supposedly fell in love with him in a few hours?
  My personal take and theory which is not really backed up by anything but my personal head canon, is that he is a replicant. The entire thing was pretty much a set up to get the two of them together. "'More human than human' is our motto." Why bother with colonists when they could use replicants without such a short lifespan who think they are colonists? Perhaps they could even breed. This comes from a couple of things. One being that, Deckard looks a lot like Holden. So much that in the first viewing, I was afraid they had already killed harrison Ford's character in the opening scene. Roy does call Deckard by name even though they had never met before. The only place he might have found Deckard's name would be in Tyrell's suite. Deckard also does pretty when when getting punched by Leon. He loses a tooth, but that wouldn't be unusual for getting hit by a big guy, let alone one who can punch through metal. There is certainly a case that Deckard is more durable than a normal human.
2. Re:It's a better story if he isn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 06:53 · Score: 0
  
  I have seen it without the narration, and you're right, the Deckard-Rachel love scene was pretty crudely done. And once you've seen it that way, it can't be unseen.
  I think the main problem is that so many people involved in the production had such different ideas about what the film should be. The controversial addition of the narration was emblematic of that. What it boils down to is, is this a story about humans and replicants, or is this a story about Deckard? As much as I enjoy the film, I think it does a poor job of fitting Deckard's (and Rachel's, and Roy's) story into the larger framework of replicants and humanity.
3. Re:It's a better story if he isn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 09:16 · Score: 0
  
  Complete with near rape scene where he corners her and makes her say she loves him because to do otherwise would most certainly mean her death.
  That brings up an interesting question... is it rape? Do you need consent to have sex with a 'machine'?
  
  There was certainly a reason they added the narration to what was the theatrical version, and that's because the original version was a little too dark and noir.
  Voice-over narration is a genre staple for film noir. They changed almost all of the narration, but this is one of those myths that just won't go away. V.O. was not added by the studio, it was there from the beginning.
4. Re:It's a better story if he isn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 09:36 · Score: 0
  
  Ya right, read the original unreleased script some time, shows Deckard is Hitler!
  There is a reason it is a Test viewing version. So they can change it.
  You can write about the test version all you want but its not the same movie everyone else is talking about and so is irrelevant to the conversation.
  Certainly no one would ever write a story about a woman running off with someone they had only know for a few hours.
  Oh wait, the write stories and movies like that all the time, with no replicants involved at all. It is the history of romantic books and movies.
  There are plenty of implications that he is a replicant, and just as plenty that he isn't. It's meant to be vague and unclear. So you question what it means to be human. The friggen point of the entire movie.
  There is plenty of evidence that an NFL player is more durable than a normal human. Blade runners who are not sturdy have a short life expectancy. For example the one that gets blown away at the start of the film.
  Tom Cruise in Mission Impossible slams full force into a bad guy off of a high throttled motorcycle. Both get up and proceed to duke it out.
  No one in the audience screams: they must be robots. Movies tend to make their heroes tougher than normal humans.
  Deckard got his ass kicked every single time he faced off against a replicant without a gun. Even Pris, the pleasure model.
  It was always made pretty clean he was lucky to get out alive. Leon took it easy on him. Zora(?) would have easily strangled him if they had not been disturbed. Just look how many times Chuck Norris round houses the bad guy and they don't die. No one says they aren't human.
  The Unicorn origami and the photos all over the piano are the only meaningful indicators he is a replicant and those can easily go both ways.
5. Re:It's a better story if he isn't. by painandgreed · 2015-02-27 09:53 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't in the original test version that they showed in CA and TX, or that they (mistakenly?) sent to the Egyptian Theater in Seattle around 2001 for the midnight movie. There was no voice overs. I like the voice overs. I'm glad they're there and think it is a better movie for it, but they weren't in that original version (as well as some other scenes) and it did change the feeling of the film.
6. Re:It's a better story if he isn't. by painandgreed · 2015-02-27 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  Although Wikipedia says they were in the workprint version. *shrug* I could be wrong. I saw it fifteen years ago.
7. Re:It's a better story if he isn't. by xevioso · 2015-02-27 10:57 · Score: 1
  
  what is this i dont even
8. Re:It's a better story if he isn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 11:45 · Score: 0
  
  There's some interesting stuff about the VOs in the book "Future Noir." Apparently, Ridley directed Fancher to put voiceover narration in the script, and by the time they got to filming, with Peeples's changes, most of it was gone.
  Then they did the test screenings, and the producers panicked when they got audience feedback cards saying the plot confused them. So they got Bud Yorkin, Katy Huber and Harrison Ford together to record a third(!) attempt at voiceovers. These were written by Roland Kibbee, and Harrison Ford hated them but was obligated to do it. Ridley Scott wasn't there, and had no input into it. These are the VOs that were used in the theatrical release.
  Later, Fancher and Peeples settled their differences. Fancher wanted his name taken off the picture, and was told that wasn't possible, but he could get a producer credit. He changed his mind when the guild told him they didn't think he deserved a writing credit, and Peeples went to bat for him, saying credit either went to both of them or neither. They were having a drink and the subject of the VOs came up, and Fancher said "What were you thinking? Why did you write that shit?" Peeples replied, "I didn't...I thought you did!"
  So the "true story" turns out to be more complicated than the myth. :)
9. Re:It's a better story if he isn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 11:52 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry, that should be "Peoples" not "Peeples." Blame my Old Man Brain. :)
10. Re: It's a better story if he isn't. by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-28 00:25 · Score: 0
  
  You've put your finger on it there. In the book, there is a framework - Mercerism. In the film, there is essentially no society. I know that is partly the point but it leaves the characters drifting without.context.
getting the movie by Archfeld · 2015-02-27 07:58 · Score: 1

Try reading the short story it makes more sense, although there are parts of the movie that very good.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D...

--
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
SEQUELS by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 09:14 · Score: 0

There were 2 book sequels, both authorized by P K Dick or his estate, Bladerunner: Edge of Human and Bladerunner: Repilcant Night, written by K W Jeter who did Dr Adder, a real mindtwister. If they use either, this could be a great movie.
Oh, oh no, please no... by Anonymous Coward · 2015-02-27 09:43 · Score: 0

I have learned my lesson. It took 2 Highlander sequels, 3 Star Wars prequels, 2 Matrix sequels, 3+ Alien sequels, Dragon Age 2 and DAI, plus numerous others, but I have finally and completely lost any urge to EVER see any movie sequel or play any video game sequel of any movie or video game. I may be dense that it too so many disappointments, but no way in hell would I ever see a Blade Runner sequel. The first one is just too damn perfect and I can't stand for it to be ruined like so many other great stories have been ruined...
measure once, cut twice, WHOOPS by Thud457 · 2015-02-27 10:08 · Score: 1

HAN SHOT FIRST ....errr, I mean.... whether Deckard is a replicant is left AMBIGUOUS!

--
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
I got a bad feeling about this by Radical+Moderate · 2015-02-27 13:53 · Score: 1

Sorry, had to be said. And I do have a bad feeling about this. I mean, if ever a movie cried out to not be sequalized, it's Blade Runner. And Casablanca. And Bonnie and Clyde. And Thelma and Louise....

--
Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
1. Re:I got a bad feeling about this by Jack+Griffin · 2015-02-27 22:16 · Score: 1
  
  Woah there buddy. One of those things is not like the other. Fucking Thelma and Louise? Seriously? Who gives a shit what they do to that spaghetti...
2. Re:I got a bad feeling about this by Radical+Moderate · 2015-03-02 13:18 · Score: 1
  
  I'm not saying Thelma & Louise is good, just that it's tough to make a sequel to a movie that ends with the protagonists flying off a cliff in a '65 T-Bird.
  
  'Fess up, you cheered at that part, didn't you?
  
  --
  Never let a lack of data get in the way of a good rant.
3. Re:I got a bad feeling about this by Anonymous Coward · 2015-03-02 17:14 · Score: 0
  
  > it's tough to make a sequel to a movie that ends with the protagonists flying off a cliff in a '65 T-Bird.
  As the car plummets, it flips forward and Thelma and Louise are thrown from the vehicle, and land safely in a big pile of trash. Hilarity ensues.
  BTW, I don't know if you picked that one because of who directed it...? :)
God ! Stay away from blade runner ! by Voice+of+satan · 2015-02-28 23:34 · Score: 1

That's what he said in the honest trailer of the incredibly dumb movie prometheus. Way to slaughter a good franchise.
Blade runner's story has been written by Hampton Fancher and David Webb Peoples. They were inspired by Philip K. Dick's novel do android dream of electric sheep but completely changed the meaning of it. In dick's book, replicants are not alive, in blade runner they are allive and struggling to be recognised as such. They are slaves who live in fear because they are considered as objects and live in fear. That's well rendered in Roy's expression when he discovers in horror the collection of live toys of J.K. Sebastian. You can see his little droids being consumed by fear.
Rutger Hauer got it and it's probably why he improvised the beautiful tears in rain monologue.
Ridley Scott ? I am not even sure he understands his own movie. After all he didn't write the scenario. I've seen an inetrview of him and all he seems to be interested about are the visual aesthetics. And gloating about how the movie defines us as human whil it does more or less the opposite.
One could surmise intersting theories about who the space jockey was in alien and why he was carrying his dangerous cargo. Why he tried to war others of the danger of what he was transporting. Were they weapons ? Were they at war with someone else ? All that was mercilessly butchered by the imbecile plot of prometheus who is worthy of a Michael Bay movie.
Go search on youtube the "honest trailer of prometheus". At least THAT is enjoyable. And like Screen Junkies say "god stay away from Blade Runner".
Darmok and Jihad at Viagra? Turn in your geek card by tepples · 2015-03-02 04:22 · Score: 1

That or you could just not go and watch the movie, just like I did not watched The Hobbit, but loved the LotR. You can always NOT watch the movie.
Unless people start to say "turn in your geek card" for not getting references to movies you haven't seen.