Blade Runner (film) sequels/prequels!

[Neil]

http://www.aintitcool.com/node/48712


LOS ANGELES, CA, MARCH 3, 2011—Warner Bros-based financing and production company Alcon Entertainment (“The Blind Side,” “The Book of Eli”) co-founders and co-Chief Executive Officers Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove, in the most significant property acquisition negotiations in the Company’s 13-year history, are in final discussions to secure film, television and ancillary franchise rights to produce prequels and sequels to the iconic 1982 science-fiction thriller “Blade Runner.”

Alcon is negotiating to secure the rights from producer-director Bud Yorkin, who will serve as producer on “Blade Runner” along with Kosove and Johnson. Cynthia Sikes Yorkin will co-produce. Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble, CEO’s of Thunderbird Films, will serve as executive producers. Alcon’s franchise rights would be all-inclusive, but exclude rights to remake the original. The Company, however, may produce projects based on situations introduced in the original film.

The project would be distributed domestically by Warner Bros. International rights are yet to be determined. Johnson and Kosove stated: “We are honored and excited to be in business with Bud Yorkin. This is a major acquisition for our company, and a personal favorite film for both of us. We recognize the responsibility we have to do justice to the memory of the original with any prequel or sequel we produce. We have long-term goals for the franchise, and are exploring multi-platform concepts, not just limiting ourselves to one medium only.”

Among its many distinctions, “Blade Runner” has been singled out as one of the greatest movies of all time by countless polls and media outlets, and overwhelmingly as the greatest science-fiction film of all time by a majority of genre publications.

Released by Warner Bros. almost 30 years ago, "Blade Runner" was adapted by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples from Philip K. Dick's novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and directed by Ridley Scott following his landmark “Alien.”

The film was nominated for two Academy Awards (Best Visual Effects, and Best Art Direction). “Blade Runner” was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant."

The film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry in 1993 and is frequently taught in university courses. In 2007, it was named the 2nd most visually influential film of all time by the Visual Effects Society. Alcon’s COO Scott Parish and head of business affairs David Fierson are negotiating on behalf of the Company.

[MinionZombie]

If it was handled properly, this could be interesting - and I'm glad that this deal excludes remake rights, because, quite frankly, there's no need AT ALL to remake Blade Runner.

I would think a sequel would be better ... it's always kinda weird when a prequel has far superior visual effects, you know? Of course, with Scott back into the Alien-ish fold, it'd be lovely if he got involved in this ... but considering that Los Angeles 2011 looks sod all like that of Blade Runner's in 2019, they might have to rejig it a touch ... but then again, you could argue that it's just another version of L.A. - so it doesn't really matter either.

It's certainly a hugely influential film - for example, I watched Repo Men t'other day, and the cityscapes in that are a TOTAL COPY of Blade Runner's vision, with a hint of Minority Report. :p

[krakenslayer]

Am I correct in saying I remember Ridley Scott in an interview somewhere stating that he considered Alien and Blade Runner to be set in the same fictional universe (presumably in different time periods)?

[MinionZombie]

Am I correct in saying I remember Ridley Scott in an interview somewhere stating that he considered Alien and Blade Runner to be set in the same fictional universe (presumably in different time periods)?

News to me personally, but that's not to say it isn't the case.

[Danny]

don't really care, the originals story was kind of half baked, it was the directing and cinematography that made it something unique and original. try and replicate it and at worst you fail, at best you create a cheap imitation. its better left alone. it doesnt need a phantom menace.

[bassman]

Ridley Scott is returning to direct (http://www.deadline.com/2011/08/ridley-scott-ready-to-direct-new-version-of-seminal-sci-fi-film-blade-runner/).


EXCLUSIVE: After revisiting his classic Alien with the upcoming 3D Fox film Prometheus, Ridley Scott is committing to direct and produce a film that advances his other seminal and groundbreaking science fiction film. Scott has signed on to direct and produce a new installment of Blade Runner. He’ll make the film with Alcon Entertainment, producing with Alcon partners Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove. This would be the most high profile project for Alcon since The Blind Side. They got control of the franchise earlier this year, but it's a whole different ballgame with Scott at the helm.

[Neil]

^^ Hmmm... Is Scott trying to build up his retirement fund or something!?

[bassman]

^^ Hmmm... Is Scott trying to build up his retirement fund or something!?

That was my first thought. I'm glad he's returning to science fiction, but I wish he wasn't going back the well. TWICE. I'm sure he could easily come up with something original...

[Neil]

Nice Blade Runner documentary...
PlUtYO2wL9E

[AcesandEights]

Hmmm, my advice would be to leave this one alone.

[acealive1]

Hmmm, my advice would be to leave this one alone.


they did the same with star wars and alien.


they made some cash so now they're building films in front of and behind it.


but why bladerunner? it didnt make all that much money in the first place. i guess its one of those "its been 25 years and found its audience on home video" kind of sequels.

[Exatreides]

I'm pretty happy about this. I'm not going to lie

http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2011/3/13/078c05ef-6d16-4f35-b7fc-75d0d339d85c.jpg

[MinionZombie]

Personally I'm intrigued by the idea. A sequel - picking up a few decades down the line - would be an interesting concept, to see how that world had changed, and the issue of replicants etc.

I don't see a prequel being feasible - being that Blade Runner is set in 2019! - but a sequel (not necessarily all that direct a sequel either) could produce some interesting new territory to explore. It depends on the quality of the idea, but I'm quite excited by Scott returning to his sci-fi roots as a feature filmmaker. I'm very much looking forward to Prometheus.

[shootemindehead]

don't really care, the originals story was kind of half baked, it was the directing and cinematography that made it something unique and original. try and replicate it and at worst you fail, at best you create a cheap imitation. its better left alone. it doesnt need a phantom menace.

The third tier to the above is that you diminish the original.

[Neil]

Scott confirms he will direct - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51846

[MinionZombie]

Scott confirms he will direct - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/51846

Schweeeeet! :cool:

Also I dig the little .gif on the page there - a reference to the remake of The Blob.

[Neil]

Sequel.... WITH HARRISON FORD???

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Harrison-Ford-Talks-Join-Blade-Runner-Reboot-29251.html

Isn't he a bit long in the tooth now? Why didn't they do this 10yrs ago?

[Sammich]

They can de-age him with cgi just like Jeff Bridges in TL. Any uncanny valley effects could be explained away with degredation of his systems since it would be long past the end of the usual replicant lifespan.

[Neil]

They can de-age him with cgi just like Jeff Bridges in TL. Any uncanny valley effects could be explained away with degredation of his systems since it would be long past the end of the usual replicant lifespan.

You know, given today's tech, that wounldn't be too hard I'd expect. And it would only be a minor 'facelift' required. ie: Take off 15rs rather than Jeff Brides's 30yrs...

[EvilNed]

They can de-age him with cgi just like Jeff Bridges in TL. Any uncanny valley effects could be explained away with degredation of his systems since it would be long past the end of the usual replicant lifespan.

Well... I guess I don't need to point out that we don't know for SURE if Deckard was a replicant or not. It's only implied.

[MinionZombie]

Well... I guess I don't need to point out that we don't know for SURE if Deckard was a replicant or not. It's only implied.

Except Ridley Scott has stated very clearly in the affirmative that Deckard is a Replicant in Blade Runner (and Ford didn't like that development).

[Neil]

Except Ridley Scott has stated very clearly in the affirmative that Deckard is a Replicant in Blade Runner (and Ford didn't like that development).

"Has"... Maybe that view might change under a different writer/film, or indeed even leave it unanswered... :)

[bassman]

Except Ridley Scott has stated very clearly in the affirmative that Deckard is a Replicant in Blade Runner (and Ford didn't like that development).

But does that apply to all three edits? I was under the impression that Deckard is only definitively labeled in the final cut while the other two are more vague?

[krisvds]

But does that apply to all three edits? I was under the impression that Deckard is only definitively labeled in the final cut while the other two are more vague?

Indeed. Liked it better that way as well. Don't get me wrong; the idea of Deckard being a replicant is a great twist, i just don't like films spelling it out for me. Ambiguity made the film stronger IMO.
As for Ford's return? He might play the guy who designed Deckard all these years ago or something, ... Doesn't HAVE to be the Deckard we saw in the original.

[Christopher Jon]

Don't get me wrong; the idea of Deckard being a replicant is a great twist,
I never cared for it.

I liked the idea that Deckard was just a burnt out human tasked with hunting down replicants who were intellectually and physically superior to him.

Harrison Ford must be desperate for anything now since he's never shown much love for Blade Runner in the past.

[EvilNed]

Except Ridley Scott has stated very clearly in the affirmative that Deckard is a Replicant in Blade Runner (and Ford didn't like that development).

So? The film only implies it, and it´s the film we're talking about.

[MinionZombie]

Well it certainly applies to the 1992 Director's Cut and the Final Cut, and I don't think there's very many ways to interpret Deckard having a memory of a Unicorn - and Gaff leaving Deckard with a parting symbol: a unicorn - with the words "it's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?" ... now sure, those words can be interepreted more widely, but in the context of the unicorn (indeed, how else would Gaff know that Deckard has that memory?) I'd say it's pretty clear what the ultimate conclusion is.

[EvilNed]

Deckard might have told him - Gaff might have overheard him - There are innumerable reasons. The unicorn isn't there to finger Deckard as a replicant, it's there to plant a seed of doubt as to wether he is or not. The or not is equally important as the he is.

[Neil]

Same writer back again?!

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Blade-Runner-Screenwriter-Hampton-Fancher-Could-Back-Sequel-30991.html


Alcon Entertainment – which will co-produce the new Blade Runner film along with Scott Free and Bud Yorkin – revealed that original Blade Runner screenwriter Hampton Fancher was in negotiations to collaborate with Scott on the film, which indeed would be a true sequel to the 1982 masterpiece. In addition, producers confirmed that the new story would take place a few years after the events of the original film.

The way the story goes, Fancher and Scott always intended to do a series of films that developed the themes found in Philip K. Dick’s sci-fi novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, which inspired the original Runner. But as is often the case in Hollywood, Scott got lured to other projects, and the collaboration was put on hold for the past 30 years.

[Sammich]

Wouldn't it be cool if the renegade replicants have freaky colored contact lenses, make dinosaur sounds, run all of the time and do it all in matrix style slow motion?

[MoonSylver]

Wouldn't it be cool if the renegade replicants have freaky colored contact lenses, make dinosaur sounds, run all of the time and do it all in matrix style slow motion?

Zack Snyder? Is that you?!?!?

:elol:

[CJ Markham]

Sorry, boys...but I think I'll take a pass.

I'd like to think I learned something from the twin fiascos of the Star Wars prequels, and George Romero's career since 2005.

-- -------- Post added at 09:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:33 PM ----------


Zack Snyder? Is that you?!?!?

:elol:

Actually...didn't the original Replicants have some kind of glowing contacts in their eyes in a couple of shots in the original film?

[Christopher Jon]

I'd prefer they leave Blade Runner alone and reboot with a fresh adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

[MinionZombie]

^^^

Regarding their eyes - that was a key to seeing who was a replicant, their eyes had a glow to them (in the iris) in certain lighting conditions. Harrison Ford even has that glow in his eyes at one point (as Scott intended - he spoke about that, and Deckard being a replicant, in a special feature on the super-duper release a few years back).

[Neil]

Harrison Ford in it?

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Ridley-Scott-Wants-Harrison-Ford-Have-Role-Blade-Runner-Sequel-31131.html

[Neil]

"Blade Runner sequel is no rumour - it's happening," according to Ridley Scott!


t’s not a rumour – it’s happening. With Harrison Ford? I don’t know yet. Is he too old? Well, he was a Nexus-6 so we don’t know how long he can live [laughs]. And that’s all I’m going to say at this stage.

http://www.metro.co.uk/film/914651-ridley-scott-blade-runner-sequel-is-no-rumour-its-happening

[MinionZombie]

I dug Prometheus - so I'm into this idea too.

Also, further confirmation from Scott himself that Deckard was a Replicant (a theory I too, subscribe to).

[Neil]

I dug Prometheus - so I'm into this idea too.

Also, further confirmation from Scott himself that Deckard was a Replicant (a theory I too, subscribe to).

It takes one to catch one?

[Neil]

Screen writer - http://www.thewrap.com/movies/column-post/ridley-scott-taps-michael-green-write-blade-runner-wb-alcon-exclusive-94746

[EvilNed]

Ridley should looking into getting Trent Reznor to make the soundtrack. This is the kind of sound a new Blade Runner should have:

O5uDh_xoXsg

[Neil]

More talk about Ford returning - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/64541


Yeah, we’ve been chatting about it…I truly admire Ridley as a man and as a director, and I would be very happy to engage again with him in the further telling of this story.

[MinionZombie]

So then what about Ridley Scott being adamant that Deckard was a replicant? :confused:

Might it be that he still is, but discovered a way to stop the countdown for all replicants? Might that have something to do with the plot? Just a wild theory.

[Neil]

So then what about Ridley Scott being adamant that Deckard was a replicant? :confused:

Might it be that he still is, but discovered a way to stop the countdown for all replicants? Might that have something to do with the plot? Just a wild theory.

Or maybe it'll be a contrived, somewhat lack lustre, effort like Promestheus?

[MinionZombie]

Or maybe it'll be a contrived, somewhat lack lustre, effort like Promestheus?

Pfft, Prometheus was class. :cool:

[Neil]

^^ Should have been... But I found parts of it daft TBH. It wasn't a bad flick, but not as good as the sum of its parts!

[shootemindehead]

Never bought into the "Deckard was a replicant" stuff. Doesn't make any sense for me. But I am only talking about the original cut which is my prefered version.

AFAIK, both Ford AND Scott denied that the character was a replicant at the beginning, but Scott revised his spiel later.

[Neil]

Never bought into the "Deckard was a replicant" stuff. Doesn't make any sense for me. But I am only talking about the original cut which is my prefered version.

AFAIK, both Ford AND Scott denied that the character was a replicant at the beginning, but Scott revised his spiel later.

"Original cut" = cinema narrated cut?

[shootemindehead]

Yeh. For me that's the real film. Unlike most people, I actually like the voice-over. It adds a film-noirish dimension to the film, which really suits it and I've always looked at Deckard as a sort of future Sam Spade-like character.

None of the tinkering really did much for me, nor did the retrofitted unicorn nonsense.

I know Scott has said that Deckard is a replicant, but he was written as a human and Ford played him as a human and the story is heavilly leaning toward a man vs machine angle.

If Deckard isn't a human, 'Blade Runner' loses a lot of its umph and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[MinionZombie]

The first version I saw was the 1992 Director's Cut, and I quite like the final touches in the 2007 Final Cut (even if some - like the lip synch bit - were things I never noticed). My biggest like for the 2007 cut was touching up the colours so the live plates and the matte paintings matched perfectly.

As for the original cinema cut voice over - when I first heard that I hated it grand style. You can tell that Ford hated every minute of delivering it and was deliberately being awful, it's awful, clunky, obvious narration ... I find Deckard's moments of quiet contemplation far more satisfying, rather than a dreadful bit of narration ordering me to listen to exactly what he's supposedly thinking, in all it's blindingly obvious fashion. :p

In terms of human/replicant - I can go either way - for a long time I've felt that he was a replicant by the end of the film (as in, it was something he had to discover) and that it was a mystery of the film. In a way it becomes about self discovery and making every second count ... "it's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"

[shootemindehead]

Deckard being a replicant never worked for me though, and if he was supposed to be from the beginning of the project, then everyone would have been on board. Clearly the writer and actors weren't, so to me it's a case of Ridley Scott reconning the idea into the film midway and then trying to force the idea with later revisions.

Harrison Ford is playing Deckard as a human being, even if he is a somewhat cold human and one that isn't too well adjusted, "Sushi" as his ex-wife called him. But then again, their isn't a single human character in the film that is well adjusted. Everyone is "disfunctional".

But, if Deckard is a robot, why the hell would he be weaker than the other replicants in the film, if he's been tasked with killing them? Roy, Pris, Zhora and Leon are all clearly physically stronger than him and it's Deckard's wits that sees him through. His speech is also very different to the other nexus 6 replicants in the film. All of the robots have a stilted way of talking and Roy exhibits a forced, fake emotion, but Deckard at certain points in the film shows clear human emotions and is capable of putting on a comical voice when he is sussing out Zhora. And he hates the job, even down to loathing having to "shoot a woman in the back". If he was a replicant, he wouldn't give a tinkers cuss. Why would they program him to hate being a bladerunner. Surely it would havev been wiser to program him to be part of the team, as it were. It's silly. Plus, his captain clearly knows Deckard for a long time. He needed the "old Bladerunner magic back". Replicants only have a very short lifespan, excluding Rachael, who was a "special" project of Tyrell's. So his captain wouldn't have known him at all, neither would Gaff.

Nothing makes sense about Deckard being a robot, other than a half-hearted, half fleshed-out "twist" and for me it makes the film a lot weaker.

[EvilNed]

I think you're confusing version. In the original cut, no he's not a replicant. But Ridley never wrote thaf dialoge either. So for me, that bullshit voice over doesn't even apply. It's irrelevant for the directors cut / final cut. The final cut / directors cut is the definite version for me.

As for what the actors, writers or directors intended, that's beside the point. It's the final product that matters.

[bassman]

As a casual fan of BR.....I don't understand why it has to be one way or the other. There are several versions of many older films. Why can't they all be enjoyed?

At a recent screening of Dawn the crowd was given a choice of which version they wanted to see. While it didn't really matter to me either way, Argento's version was booed. I can understand that because it's my least favorite of the three, but it's still the same movie...

[shootemindehead]

They can, I agree. I just think the Deckard as replicant thing is a bit silly and certainly something that's an afterthought that's been forced and for me it doesn't really work.

But, I don't agree that it's "the same movie". Changes to a film can make a huge difference. Sometimes for good and sometimes for bad. For instance 'Apocalypse Now - Redux' is a hugely inferior version to the original theatrical cut. Likewise for 'The Big Red One'. Both films had footage on the cutting room floor for a reason.

Also, take 'Aliens' for example. I simply cannot watch the original theatrical version any more. The Cameron cut is a far more enjoyable film and the inserted scenes make a huge difference.

- - - Updated - - -


As for what the actors, writers or directors intended, that's beside the point. It's the final product that matters.

But there's several different "final products" Ned.

I own every one of them on a great boxset I git a few years ago. But the theatrical version will always remain the definative version for me, because THAT is what the people who made it in the first place wanted it to be (sans voice-over of course). The other versions are director retrofits and not what was intended at the time, even by Ridley Scott.

But, yeah, if people want Deckard to be human or a robot, they can enjoy either show. The robot thing just doesn't add up for me, because it simply wasn't written or played that way originally, so the subsequent retrofits don't really work.

Either way, I think a 'Bladerunner' sequel will probably be awful.

[MinionZombie]

At a recent screening of Dawn the crowd was given a choice of which version they wanted to see. While it didn't really matter to me either way, Argento's version was booed. I can understand that because it's my least favorite of the three, but it's still the same movie...

Yeah, the Argento Cut is decidedly inferior. I don't like what's been cut out, nor do I like the entire soundtrack being Goblin, and it doesn't feel like the Director's own vision - for me though, my preferred version is the Extended Cannes Cut. It's the first version I saw, so that's how it is for me (similarly with Aliens, whereas the extended version of T2 isn't as good as the theatrical version IMO).

Shoot - As for the original cut of Blade Runner being "what the people who made it in the first place wanted it to be", I don't agree. In certain circumstances they had to just get the film finished (e.g. that dodgy shot with the dove flying away is just the side of some old stage building, whereas in the Final Cut it at long last fits in with the overall look and feel of the film), and then that voice over wasn't wanted by many of the people involved.

[shootemindehead]

Most films are subject to compromise. However, the so called "Director's cut" and "final cut" is Scott's vision only, mainly to force his "Deckard is a replicant" nonsense. It's not the collaborative effort that the original cut was, warts and all. It's simply Scott's tinkering.

I've always found it odd though that so many fans claim that they hate the voice-over. For 10 years nobody gave a crap and then the "director's cut" appeared and everyone was like "I hated the voice-over". But, I think the film loses something without it. All voice-overs are clunky, from 'Double Indemnity' to 'The Shawshank Redemption' and I think that 'Blade Runner gets a raw deal over its one. It's really not that bad.

But the voice-over lends a certain noirish feel to 'Blade Runner' that I like, as I mentioned before. Deckard is supposed to be like a Philip Marlowe/Sam Spade type in the future. His overcoat and Rachael's hairstyle are also throwbacks to the films of the 40's. The voice-over just suits it. Perhaps as a fan of 40's film noir, it resonates better with me than it does with most?

Even the "happy ending" I prefer, as it shows that there's a "beyond" outside of the miserable city of L.A. and it leads nicely into Vangelis's score.

As for 'Dawn of the Dead', I like the fact that Argento cut out that ridiculous chopper zombie and the idiotic pie-fight. But I prefer Romero's vision in the extended cut, which is the one I rewatch the most.

[EvilNed]

The Voiceover (and the happy ending) is the afterthought, not the "Deckard is a Replicant"-hints.

[MinionZombie]

The Voiceover (and the happy ending) is the afterthought, not the "Deckard is a Replicant"-hints.

^^^

I agree.

[MoonSylver]

I, like you Shootem, like the voice over, for the same reasons. 1st version for me+noir. But, I also like the idea that Dekkard MIGHT OR MIGHT NOT be a Replicant. I'm ok with it being open to interpretation & not definitive, & don't really want or need someone to say "yes or no", as I feel that kind of spoils it. Kind of like the "Is MacCready or Childs a Thing?" ending of JC's "The Thing". :)

[shootemindehead]

AFAIK, the voice-over was present in an early draft of Francher's script, in which Deckard spends a lot of time alone in his apartment. Much of 'Bladerunner' took place behind closed doors, before Scott came on board and expanded it. It was then taken out, probably by Scott. Then, a version was put back in at the behest of the producers, much to the chargin of Scott and Ford.

Don't know whether the happy ending was tacked on, or by whom though.

@Moon, if people want the "Deckard replicant", or the "is he or isn't he", they can go with it. That's fine. For me it's a bit silly, for reasons outlined above. It just doesn't work for me.

Deckard wasn't written as a replicant, nor was he filmed as a replicant, nor was he acted by Ford as a replicant.

[EvilNed]

I have to disagree on the replicant part. I believe the idea of him being a replicant was definetly there when filming. It's pretty obvious, to me at least, that it's not just some after thought. Tere are too many clues throughout. Also, the unicorn footage was actually shot during the original shoot in 1981/1982. It was removed and then reinserted. (http://www.mybladerunner.com/faqs/4-9-1-the-unicorn-footage-is-from-the-movie-legend-right-no-it-is-not/)

A voice over was undoubtedly present in an earlier draft - being a noirish film - but THE voice over we were left with was tacked on by the same people who added a happy ending at the end, and that happy ending is just leftover footage from The Shining I believe.

So yeah, the idea of Deckard being a replicant was present during the original shoot. Did Harrison Ford act him that way? Does it matter? Isn't the point that it's supposed to be ambiguous?

[shootemindehead]

One wonders why Scott agreed to cut the unicorn footage out in the first place. I've also seen a theory that the unicorn is actually an implant for Rachael, which Deckard and Gaff have seen in her files at the Tyrell Corp. and Deckard is simply recalling it. Not too sure I like that explanation though.

As for the replicant thing. Ford is on record as saying that he considered him human. Other actors too. In a documentary I saw ages ago, M. Emmet Walsh looked bemused at the question and said that there was never any such suggestion on the set ever. Although I believe Ford and Scott have come to terms about most things from Bladerunner's past. Apparently, there was endless bickering on the set and after the film had wrapped.

As I said though, if anyone is fine with Deckard being a replicant, that's grand. Scott certainly wants it that way in the later versions. But in the source material, he's a human being and in the original, there's only the very merest of a hint. But making Deckard a replicant is just stupid, as he clearly acts human throughout the film and he demonstrates very human frailties, including having to be saved at the end by the physically superior Roy Batty. If Deckard was a replicant, he wouldn't have needed that. In fact, he wouldn't have been battered by each replicant in turn. They all have a go and come close to getting the better of him (Leon, Zhora, Pris and Roy). Why make Deckard a replicant and then have him so weak. It's silly. It would also mean that everyone, but Deckard would have to be in on the game, but there's no indication that that's the case and such a plot twist would require that all the conspirators from Bryant to Tyrell would have to be fantastic actors in order not to give the game away.

If Deckard was a robot, it would make much more sense to have him at least as strong as the other robots he's chasing. As a human, he relies on his senses, humanity and ingenuity to catch the androids. How would an android use the Voight-Kammpf machine? They wouldn't understand the humanity or the empathy involved as they're completely devoid of emotion. A human Bladerunner catches the unfeeling replicants because they are human and can trip up the robots with questions based on human situations and the non-human reponses given by them.

Also, replicants are designed by physical and not that intelligent. They're labourers, not "computers", as Roy Batty says. Bladerunners rely on their wits to catch rogue replicants. Of course Deckard could have been programmed to have superior intelligence, but then that would mean that Tyrell would have to have created Deckard as a special model. But there's no hint that Tyrell has done any such thing.

It's still just all a bit silly, for me, though.

All this yap actually has me wanting to watch the flick again.

[MinionZombie]

All this yap actually has me wanting to watch the flick again.

A big old ditto on that. :cool:

I've even had bits of the soundtrack filtering into my head when I'm not even thinking about it.

[shootemindehead]

Just listened to the end titles on YouTube

[EvilNed]

One wonders why Scott agreed to cut the unicorn footage out in the first place. I've also seen a theory that the unicorn is actually an implant for Rachael, which Deckard and Gaff have seen in her files at the Tyrell Corp. and Deckard is simply recalling it. Not too sure I like that explanation though.

To be honest, I don't think Scott agreed to anything. Hence, a "Directors Cut" being necessitated. The original version wasn't "The Directors cut". It was the studio's cut. It had three big things that Scott didn't want in the film: A voice-over, a happy ending, and an absense of unicorns. Clearly, the film needed more unicorns.


As for the replicant thing. Ford is on record as saying that he considered him human. Other actors too. In a documentary I saw ages ago, M. Emmet Walsh looked bemused at the question and said that there was never any such suggestion on the set ever. Although I believe Ford and Scott have come to terms about most things from Bladerunner's past. Apparently, there was endless bickering on the set and after the film had wrapped.

I'm sure he did, but Ford didn't direct the film.

[shootemindehead]

I'm sure he did, but Ford didn't direct the film.

Yes, but surely if Scott had wanted Deckard to be a replicant from the get-go he would have stated this to the actors involved in the film? It would have been explict in the script? And everyone would have been on board, so it wouldn't have ended up looking silly. I can't imagine that Ridley Scott would have been that obscure about it, if indeed he'd wanted to communicate or even strongly hint that from the beginning of production.

But it wasn't. It was something that Scott came up with during filming, it seems, and forceably bolted it on. Even more so with the subsequent versions. He's only come out and given a definite answer in the last few years anyhow.

It all just doesn't sit right with me at all.

[EvilNed]

Yes, but surely if Scott had wanted Deckard to be a replicant from the get-go he would have stated this to the actors involved in the film?

Why? If the director wanted to keep it ambiguous, then maybe he didn't tell Ford. As for it being in the script, again, if it's ambiguous, why put it in the script? The script obviously included an image of a unicorn, and that's our biggest clues - Gaff knows his dreams - so I just don't buy all this "it has to be explicitly stated"-stuff. There's nothing about Blade Runner there's explicitly stated anywhere.

[MoonSylver]

Of course Deckard could have been programmed to have superior intelligence, but then that would mean that Tyrell would have to have created Deckard as a special model. But there's no hint that Tyrell has done any such thing.

That's the possibility I had always entertained. That Deckard is a special model (maybe Blade Runners in general? Or certain ones?). Same for his lack of physical prowess. Sacrificed for the qualities of emotion, ingenuity, & intellect need to catch the replicants. Maybe even not made by Tyrell?

Dunno. Not saying I buy it. Nothing in the film to say for certain. But the possibility is explainable or conceivable, so it entertains me anyway. :)

[MinionZombie]

Just listened to the end titles on YouTube

Aye, that's my favourite piece from the soundtrack. I've listened to that track so many times. There's few films that I'll watch the credits roll, but Blade Runner is one such film - everytime I've gotta listen to that piece of score, and it's a wonderful way to ride out the closing moments of the film ... to kind of filter away into the ether of that world, away from the central plot we've been watching, and then back into our own world in front of the TV ... if that makes sense?

[EvilNed]

Re: Deckards strength, I got the impression that only the Nexus 6's had superior strength. So that explains that.

[shootemindehead]

Why? If the director wanted to keep it ambiguous, then maybe he didn't tell Ford. As for it being in the script, again, if it's ambiguous, why put it in the script? The script obviously included an image of a unicorn, and that's our biggest clues - Gaff knows his dreams - so I just don't buy all this "it has to be explicitly stated"-stuff. There's nothing about Blade Runner there's explicitly stated anywhere.

Framton's scripts didn't include the unicorn though. Maybe a later re-write did however. Or it was an onset addition.

- - - Updated - - -


Re: Deckards strength, I got the impression that only the Nexus 6's had superior strength. So that explains that.

But why send a shit replicant after good ones? That makes no sense.

[Neil]

Deckard is in the sequel/prequel thingy? - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/67332


...they've sent out an offer to Harrison Ford to reprise his role of Rick Deckard

If Harrison Ford is being asked, then surely it's a prequel thingy then?

[bassman]

Several months ago I would've said "no way Ford will sign on for this". I also would've said the same for the new Star Wars trilogy, so that all just went out the window....

[Neil]

A little bit more on it today - http://www.upi.com/Entertainment_News/Movies/2014/05/16/Harrison-Ford-gets-an-offer-to-star-in-Blade-Runner-sequel/6351400243992/?spt=hts&or=11

[Neil]

Script for sequel written - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/68514


“It’s written and it’s damn good,” Scott says of the Blade Runner sequel. “Of course it involves Harrison, who is a survivor after all these years—despite the accident,” he says with a laugh (referring, no doubt, to Ford’s Star Wars injury). “So yes, that will happen.”

Personally I'm not very excited. I suspect this film is 10-15yrs too late! Scott has definately lost his mojo IMHO!

[MinionZombie]

Personally I'm not very excited. I suspect this film is 10-15yrs too late! Scott has definately lost his mojo IMHO!

I'm more optimistic. I thought "Prometheus" was good ... it's only real problem was the ridiculous amount of hype (and, as it turned out, spoiler-ific teasers/clips/trailers/etc that were blurted out all over the media). It was grown up, it was about big ideas, it didn't pander to the lowest common denominator, it didn't fill itself with expository explanations for lazy audiences, and it was creepy as hell.

I'm looking forward to seeing what they'll do with BR2. :cool:

[shootemindehead]

It's just going to be another example of a completely unnecessary sequel, I'm afraid.

[MoonSylver]

:bored: This kind of stuff rarely has the power to interest me anymore. :|

[Neil]

Scott not directing? - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/69608

Having seen some of his more recent films, I think that may be a good thing!

[MinionZombie]

Scott not directing? - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/69608

Having seen some of his more recent films, I think that may be a good thing!

Hmmm ... Scott's vision for Blade Runner was so stunning, can someone else do something to match it? While Scott's output has been a bit up-and-down of late, I loved Prometheus.

[Neil]

Hmmm ... Scott's vision for Blade Runner was so stunning, can someone else do something to match it? While Scott's output has been a bit up-and-down of late, I loved Prometheus.

He is producing it, which maybe is the ideal role for him (now)?

Wonder if Vangelis is available? :)

[Legion2213]

Hmmm ... Scott's vision for Blade Runner was so stunning, can someone else do something to match it? While Scott's output has been a bit up-and-down of late, I loved Prometheus.

Focking respect! I enjoyed it as well. :D

[MinionZombie]

Focking respect! I enjoyed it as well. :D

*high five*

Too often, at least it seems, I hear too much moaning about that movie, but I loved it ... I must dig in to my 3-disc Blu-Ray again for another spin of it all. :)

[bassman]

The article mentions that he already has a premiere date for an unannounced film in 2017. With directing the Blade Runner sequel out of the way....perhaps it will be Prometheus 2?

I also really enjoyed Prometheus. Even with it's faults, it's still easily one of the top science fiction films in recent memory.

[MinionZombie]

perhaps it will be Prometheus 2?

Oh please, please please please pleeeeeeeease!!! That'd rock so much. :) *fingers crossed*

[Legion2213]

Oh please, please please please pleeeeeeeease!!! That'd rock so much. :) *fingers crossed*

Yeah, would love to see more of the engineers.

[Neil]

Harrison Ford thinks it's the best script he's ever read - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/What-Harrison-Ford-Thinks-Blade-Runner-2-Script-68652.html


"I sent him this [script] and he said it’s the best thing he’s ever read. It’s very relevant to what happened in the first one."

[MinionZombie]

Harrison Ford thinks it's the best script he's ever read - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/What-Harrison-Ford-Thinks-Blade-Runner-2-Script-68652.html

Well that sounds like a good start, so hopefully it'll be turned into a good movie as well.

[Neil]

Seems it's a go - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/70514


Turns out Harrison Ford is locked and loaded to return as Deckard and he's pumped for it, too, according to Ridley Scott who said Hampton Fancher and Michael Green's script impressed the notoriously grumpy actor. He even went so far as to call it the best script he'd ever read.

[EvilNed]

I think it can be good.

I just hope (for their sake) they don't turn this into a 150 million dollar film. It's not that story and it doesn't have that pull. The original is a 30+ old sci-fi film that bombed upon first release and has since then gained a cult following... It's not the superblockbuster people might think it was.

[Neil]

BBC article - http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31657466

[MinionZombie]

Agreed with Ned - hopefully they don't go overboard with the budget (and advertising!) - but it will have a helpful boost going into it due to the established fan base.

Hopefully Ford's got good taste and the script really is as good as it apparently is. *Fingers crossed*

[shootemindehead]

If Ford is set to return, then that's even another nail in the "Deckard is a replicant" coffin for me.

A robot that can age 30 years?

"That's not a bug, that's a feature!"

[MoonSylver]

If Ford is set to return, then that's even another nail in the "Deckard is a replicant" coffin for me.

A robot that can age 30 years?

"That's not a bug, that's a feature!"

Weren't the replicants synthetic/bio-engineered, not mechanical in "construcion"? :rockbrow: If so, ageing (or maybe just the APPEARNCE of it) COULD be possible...not sure WHY you'd want it, unless it was to create as life like a replicant as possible...:|

[shootemindehead]

I think having a OAP robot would just about the most stupid thing I've seen in a sci-fi film in a long, long time.

[MinionZombie]

It doesn't necessarily blow the Replicant Deckard theory out of the water - we've not seen the film (which hasn't even started shooting yet), let alone read a script - so for all we know he could actually be a Nexus 7 or something like that; a trial run of a superior replicant that could take on the formidable Nexus 6 line.

[shootemindehead]

Nexus 6 is the top of the line though. Bar Rachael who was a private experiment.

If Ford (72 now and older when shooting actually starts) is a newer replicant model, how would everybody know him for years? Everybody in the police force knows him. They want they "old magic back". It would imply a redundant and frankly, laughable, conspiracy in the LAPD.

It's utterly senseless.

But, if he is a robot that can visibly age, that alone is just dumb. There's no other word for it. It's a ridiculous idea.

And Deckard is anything but superior to the Nexus 6 robots he tackles. He's grossly inferior and visibly weaker. Much weaker. They all get the better of him with greatest of ease. He defeats them primarily by dumb luck or the intervention of others.

This sequel, is actually one picture I will be keeping an eye out for spoilers for, or a leaked script, and if he's a robot, I'll simply ignore the film. Unless it's an absolute masterpiece. :lol: