Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Harrison Ford To Return In Blade Runner Sequel

Posted by Soulskill on 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.

36 of 222 comments (clear)

  1. I Have Plans Now by Akratist · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...going to be camping outside the theater for the next few years.

    1. Re:I Have Plans Now by slashmydots · · 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 gstoddart · · 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.
  2. Oh God No... by Lord_Frederick · · 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 · · Score: 3

      This. This. 1000 times this.

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    2. Re:Oh God No... by Tran · · 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.

    3. Re:Oh God No... by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Prometheus rocked.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    4. Re:Oh God No... by Etherwalk · · 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*

    5. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    6. Re:Oh God No... by gstoddart · · 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.
    7. Re:Oh God No... by blind+biker · · 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.
    8. Re:Oh God No... by rot26 · · 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
    9. Re:Oh God No... by Totenglocke · · 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
    10. Re:Oh God No... by bmo · · 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

    11. Re:Oh God No... by MightyMartian · · 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.
    12. Re:Oh God No... by MouseR · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was not said that ALL replicants live four years. The Nexus 6 were. But Decker and Rachel where not N6s.

    13. Re:Oh God No... by wierd_w · · 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

    14. Re:Oh God No... by Plunky · · 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.

    15. Re:Oh God No... by arth1 · · 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.

    16. Re:Oh God No... by Anonymous Coward · · 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!

    17. Re:Oh God No... by moeinvt · · 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."

    18. Re:Oh God No... by The+Rizz · · 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.

  3. So is he a replicant, or not? by sideslash · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 · · 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 stjobe · · 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
    5. Re:So is he a replicant, or not? by Shortguy881 · · 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.
  4. Highlander 2 by DiamondGeezer · · 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 stjobe · · Score: 5, Funny

      There was a sequel to Highlander?

      No. "There can be only one", remember?

      --
      "Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
  5. I decided that I simply won't watch it by blind+biker · · 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 mrex · · 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. This Can't End Well by WheezyJoe · · 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 · · 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.

  7. Please Don't by CMOS4081 · · 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.

  8. 2017 by tekrat · · 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.