Blade Runner to be redone

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.deadline.com/2011/08/ridley- ... de-runner/

discuss.

Could be interesting or awful. Has Scott done anything decent in the last decade? I can't think

The title of this thread is a bit misleading. There's a big difference between a remake of an older movie and a second installment. If it were truly a remake, I would likely be unhappy about it-- Hollywood does way too many of those, and they're virtually never as good as the originals. It always upsets me when Hollywood shows itself to be too lazy or concerned with money to come up with new story ideas, so they have to resort to desecrating old classics. However, since this is Scott's film originally, I'd be very interested if he developed an original sequel. It would be interesting if he managed to get Harrison Ford to reprise his role, but in this particular instance, I'm not sure it's mandatory; there's a whole camp of Blade Runner fans that interprets the movie to mean that Deckard himself was actually secretly a replicant, so it might keep some of the mystique alive if Ford weren't attached to this new one. At any rate, I certainly think the setting that Scott created for the original-- the dark, dystopian, neon-lit 2019 version of L.A.-- is interesting enough to work for a whole other movie.

There was some news not long ago that Scott was going to be making a webseries of new stories that take place in the Blade Runner world. I’m assuming that he’s taking that idea and making a film instead. I doubt that it’ll be a direct continuation of Blade Runner. It’ll probably be more like Prometheus, which by all accounts is a new story that just happens to take place in the world of Alien.

Blade Runner is my favorite film, but I’m not one of those movie geeks who get offended at the idea of remakes or sequels to classics, so I say bring it on. It’s not like it’ll ruin the original movie if it’s bad. Although to be honest, I would rather see a new adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? that sticks closer to the book.

People who insist that Deckard definitely is human or definitely is a replicant are both missing the point. Although I think the film makes no sense at all if he's not human, the whole point is that you're never supposed to be certain.

It's hard to imagine a Bladerunner remake without Rutger Hauer, as he was the heart and soul of the movie. I can only hope that Ridley Scott chooses an actor who can fill his shoes as Roy Batty.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Does anybody remember the sequal to the classic "High Noon" with Lee Majors?
One of the worst movies ever made.

When classic movies end that should be it; no sequal to spoil the original.

Two words: Michael Fassbender.



“Here’s an example of a sequel that sucked, therefore all sequels suck and they should never be made” is not a valid argument.

It's a good thing that the people behind Aliens, The Empire Strikes Back, The Godfather Part II, The Road Warrior, The Silence of the Lambs, Star Trek II, Superman II, Terminator 2, Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3, and X-Men 2 didn't share your pessimism.

And bad sequels only spoil the original if you let them. Nobody has a hard time watching The Terminator just because Terminator 3 sucked.

Hauer was indeed -The- Replicant. His death scene was a classic.

ruveyn

Indeed. If anything, I found his character very sympathetic. Who wouldn't kill and maim for the chance not only to save your own life, but the lives of the woman you love, and your friends?

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

If you check his interview on the 25th anniversary final cut you'll find that Ridley Scott insists that Deckard is a replicant.

Is he missing his own point?

As far as the new movie goes, I'm a big fan of Ridley Scott, so I'll just cross my fingers and hope he comes through...

I usually accept the director's own words as the truth, but I have my limits. If George Lucas announced that Luke Skywalker had been a Sith all along, Star Wars fans would rightfully revolt. I'm not convinced that Scott ever understood his material, because everything he says suggests that he doesn't. Every time he talks about the idea that Deckard is a Replicant, he makes it sound as if he threw it in as an afterthought. Why is Deckard a Replicant? Because Ridley thought it would be a cool twist.

Nevermind the fact that it creates about a dozen plot holes, not to mention that it destroys the thematic irony of Deckard, a human, being more robotic than the artificial beings he's hunting, and ultimately learning something about humanity from them. Aside from the unicorn dream sequence (that, again, Scott threw in as nothing more than an afterthought), nothing in the film supports the idea that Deckard is a Replicant.

But, like I said, even though I strongly feel that the film just doesn't work if Deckard isn't human, it misses the point to say with certainty that he's one or the other.

I never once thought that Deckard was a Replicant - I thought he was emotionally disconnected because he was trained to be an emotionless killer. At least in regard to the movie; I am shamefaced to admit I never read Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

It's a great book and I would recommend reading it. It's not Philip K. Dick's best novel, but it's probably the best one for newcomers. A lot of hardcore fans, myself included, started with it. I've hooked several people by telling them to read it. On the other hand, I've suggested better but less accessible novels like A Scanner Darkly, and I was greeted with boredom and confusion. So grab a copy and enjoy.

Just don't expect Blade Runner: The Novel, because there are more differences between the book and the movie than similarities.

As for the Deckard of the book, he takes the Voight-Kampff test and is confirmed as human, but he doubts the results. He's pretty much the same in the book and the film: biologically human, but inside he's cold and losing his grip on his humanity.

^^^

Well, I guess we can agree that one of the things that make Blade Runner great is speculating about Deckard’s nature…


Deckard, in the book, is certainly “robot-like”, and constantly worrying about how his job is destroying his humanity. However, Deckard in the movie is completely different. Movie Deckard is plagued by his own empathy. The fact that he too closely identifies with his targets is why he quit being a Blade Runner. It fits right in thematically with Roy and the rest… After all Tyrell’s motto is “More human than human,” and that describes Deckard and Roy both.

There’s more clues to Deckard’s nature than just the unicorn dream. Eye symbolism is very important too. Deckard has replicant eyes.

Let’s consider Gaff as well. On the surface Gaff seems to be a minor, unneeded character. However, every time he’s on screen he upstages everyone else. He literally screams significance! This is because Gaff is really the title character. Gaff is the Blade Runner holding Deckard’s leash…

In my mind Deckard and Rachael are a matched pair. Both are nexus 6, with memory implants and no lifespan limit… letting them escape was an experiment.

I hated that "no incept date" crap that they put into the end of the movie with Deckard's voice over. Everything's fine and dandy, and he won't have to worry about Rachel ever dying. This totally ignores the whole fragility and uncertainty of life that had been a recurring theme through out the movie. A better ending to go with - minus mention of incept dates - were Deckard's final words, "I don't know how much time we have together. Who does?"

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer

Hmm... I'd have to go back and rewatch the Final Cut ending to see how it's handled there... I thought the incept date thing was part of the "happy ending" (human Deckard) version... (either way I don't have a big problem with Rachael having a longer lifespan--she's not an ordinary "production model" after all).

For me, the overriding theme of the book and the movie is "what defines human?"

Both works suggest that empathy is what separates humans from animals or robots. In the end Roy proves his humanity by saving Deckard, and Deckard proves his humanity by loving/saving Rachael.

EDIT:
SPOILERS:














The Final Cut ends with Deckard holding the unicorn up to the camera as Gaff's line echoes,"It's too bad she won't live...but then again, who does?" before Deckard and Rachael step into the elevator and credits roll.

That's the ending I prefer--nice and ambiguous.

PS
..but Deckard's still a skinjob!