Jump to content

Recommended Posts

The iconic science fiction film Blade Runner, based on a book by Philip K. Dick and directed by Ridley Scott, will be followed up with sequels and prequels soon. Variety reports that Alcon Entertainment is in final discussions to secure film, TV and franchise rights to produce prequels and sequels based on Scott's 1982 science fiction masterpiece. Andrew Kosove and Broderick Johnson, the film producers from Alcon negotiating for the rights, told Variety they're in the early stages of sorting out how to proceed and were not sure if Ridley Scott would be involved.

Whatever happens, we're doomed.

http://sciencefictionworld.com/films/science-fiction-films/734-blade-runner-sequels-and-prequels-happening.html

At least they're bringing back cyberpunk??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the 1998 Kurt Russel film "Soldier" was an (unofficial) sequel.

Gah... hopefully this new stuff won't be anywhere near as dog doo-doo as that movie was. Total let down - only went to see it because of an awesome space battle scene in the trailer, that was never finished and eventually cut from the final film. >.<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's good and bad in this.

Bad: Blade Runner, IMO, was quite good. Very hard to come out with a decent sequel after that. Especially decades after the original. Whoever takes up on this project will have their hands full. I just hope they don't use the original movie's characters, namely Deckard and Rachel.

Good: The setting. Hollywood doesn't really do this kind of setting often. In a way, even though they're following a well received movie from back in the day, they have quite a bit of a free hand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's good and bad in this.

Bad: Blade Runner, IMO, was quite good. Very hard to come out with a decent sequel after that. Especially decades after the original. Whoever takes up on this project will have their hands full. I just hope they don't use the original movie's characters, namely Deckard and Rachel.

Good: The setting. Hollywood doesn't really do this kind of setting often. In a way, even though they're following a well received movie from back in the day, they have quite a bit of a free hand.

I thought the look of Minority Report was the "evolution" of the dystopia punk aesthetic. Or A.I.? Or I, Robot? Ugh. Now that I think about it, maybe it is good they bring the king back. The interweb's been going crazy over the the past few hours regarding this...

Maybe they can do an Indy 4 and bring back Deckard. Eh? Eh? See? He wasn't a replicant!

http://news.google.com.ph/news/more?q=blade+runner&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dgxNTIX7VKpKEdMHf_pasjSVnZqMM&ei=RmBwTcvVIJCycZTx4fgC&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&resnum=1&ved=0CCsQqgIwAA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I underestimated the power of the Star Wars prequels and they almost ruin the Original Trilogy for me. I'm not risking BR to some mediocre product just because the license issues were finally sorted out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're talking about, ep III is the best SW movie! As for Blade Runner, I like this news for one reason. I hope it prompts Kojima to give us the ultimate in next gen action/crime scene investigation sci-fi cyberpunk games, i.e. a remake of Snatcher.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're talking about, ep III is the best SW movie! As for Blade Runner, I like this news for one reason. I hope it prompts Kojima to give us the ultimate in next gen action/crime scene investigation sci-fi cyberpunk games, i.e. a remake of Snatcher.

Hell yes, I'd like to revisit Neo-Kobe. The recent tech demo of the latest incarnation of the Unreal engine makes me wanna shout at Kojima to JUST DO IT.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/03/03/very-real-epic-reveal-next-gen-unreal-tech/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man, I'd kill for some Neo-Kobe pizza, on the way down to the Joy Division, to pick up some of those Rick Bakery masks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought that the 1998 Kurt Russel film "Soldier" was an (unofficial) sequel.

Gah... hopefully this new stuff won't be anywhere near as dog doo-doo as that movie was. Total let down - only went to see it because of an awesome space battle scene in the trailer, that was never finished and eventually cut from the final film. >.<

It wasnt a sequel, just set within the same universe. The only real link is that Kurt Russels character is noted to have fought in several of the battles that Roy Batty talks about in his closing speech in Blade Runner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And a rather sh!tty side story: I had to read the Wikipedia article to remenber what this movie was about...

As for the main news of the topic: meh... Scott already began to ruin his masterpiece with the unnecessary third version a few years ago, why not finishing it off now?

Edited by Gui

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know what you're talking about, ep III is the best SW movie! As for Blade Runner, I like this news for one reason. I hope it prompts Kojima to give us the ultimate in next gen action/crime scene investigation sci-fi cyberpunk games, i.e. a remake of Snatcher.

Snatcher? I loved it on the

. I was terribly dismayed Kojiima didn't bring Policenauts over to the US. Snatcher itself was a big nod to Blade Runner. Kind of fitting for this thread in a funny way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DO NOT WANT

As for the main news of the topic: meh... Scott already began to ruin his masterpiece with the unnecessary third version a few years ago, why not finishing it off now?

Have you seen the Final Cut? It's flawless, and probably the best Bluray disc on the market.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the theatrical release was fine the way it was, every version after that was completely unnecessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DO NOT WANT

Have you seen the Final Cut? It's flawless, and probably the best Bluray disc on the market.

Agreed. Haters can have their over-exposition version, Final Cut ftw.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed. Haters can have their over-exposition version, Final Cut ftw.

I'll take over-exposition over bullshit unicorn hallucinations, thank you very much. ^_^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll take over-exposition over bullshit unicorn hallucinations, thank you very much. happy.gif

Dreams dude, they're dreams!! And may the robotech narrator haunt you in yours :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial reaction this is luke warm - mainly because of an instinctive "Blade Runner is fine the way it is!" feeling - but I guess the worse that can happen is that this new thing will turn out lame and I'll just forget about it and continue enjoying the original.

Or it'll be good.

Pete

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My initial reaction this is luke warm - mainly because of an instinctive "Blade Runner is fine the way it is!" feeling - but I guess the worse that can happen is that this new thing will turn out lame and I'll just forget about it and continue enjoying the original.

Or it'll be good.

Pete

No, no, you're doing macrossworld wrong. It's going to be the worst thing ever, so awful it will travel back in time and destroy the original movies and then sleep with your grandma just out of spite, RAGE!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[...]

Have you seen the Final Cut? It's flawless, and probably the best Bluray disc on the market.

Never seen any Bluray of this movie but I remember having watched on TV a version called Final Cut something like last year or so: dunno if it's the same but I found it completely unnecessary – the Director's Cut from 1992 remains the best Blade Runner for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dreams dude, they're dreams!! And may the robotech narrator haunt you in yours :)

Yeah how exactly was that supposed to show he was a replicant or not? If I recall correctly he was drunk off his ass right before the unicorn scene, people tend to see a lot of screwy things wasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah how exactly was that supposed to show he was a replicant or not? If I recall correctly he was drunk off his ass right before the unicorn scene, people tend to see a lot of screwy things wasted.

The dream by itself doesn't show he's a replicant. The fact that Gaff know's his dream, and leaves him an Oragami unicorn is what proves he's a replicant.

Edited by Keith

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dream by itself doesn't show he's a replicant. The fact that Gaff know's his dream, and leaves him an Oragami unicorn is what proves he's a replicant.

Which is all bullshit, of course. All of Gaff's figurines say something. The unicorn, originally, signified uniqueness; being rare and special.

For me, the dream is just a dream. I ignore it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which is all bullshit, of course. All of Gaff's figurines say something. The unicorn, originally, signified uniqueness; being rare and special.

For me, the dream is just a dream. I ignore it.

For me in the case of any ambiguity then the final word is from the director. In this case the director has stated that Deckard is a replicant and that the origami unicorn Gaff leaves is a reference to his implanted dream.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me in the case of any ambiguity then the final word is from the director. In this case the director has stated that Deckard is a replicant and that the origami unicorn Gaff leaves is a reference to his implanted dream.

Except that at the time the movie was made nobody was saying he's was a replicant. The screen writer says the he's human, Harrison Ford says he's human, Phillip K. Dick originally wrote the character as human. Scott is the only person who's ever explicitly stated that he was a replicant and that was 20 years after the fact. Just because Scott changed his mind at some point and the studio decided to cash in on that by letting him re-edit the movie doesn't change the original intent of the film at all.

so yeah, Deckard is NOT a replicant and Ridley Scott can sit on it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DO NOT WANT

Have you seen the Final Cut? It's flawless, and probably the best Bluray disc on the market.

Amen! The very first bluray I purchased and viewed was Blade Runner. It was like a religious experience. The opening hades shot was so clear that it was incredible.

As for a sequel/prequel...it has disaster written all over it. Blade Runner chewed up a few different screen writers and they had a novel to work with as source material. What will the sequel/prequel have? I've read some of the post Blade Runner novels and they are OK but nothing to write home about.

My gut feeling...leave it alone.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that at the time the movie was made nobody was saying he's was a replicant. The screen writer says the he's human, Harrison Ford says he's human, Phillip K. Dick originally wrote the character as human. Scott is the only person who's ever explicitly stated that he was a replicant and that was 20 years after the fact. Just because Scott changed his mind at some point and the studio decided to cash in on that by letting him re-edit the movie doesn't change the original intent of the film at all.

so yeah, Deckard is NOT a replicant and Ridley Scott can sit on it.

At the time the movie was made nobody was saying he was a replicant because the majority of audiences were too busy saying what a tedious load of poo the film was, and the crew were bitching about having to do shitty voiceovers and edits.

Harrison Ford's opinion while interesting dosnt have any relevance. Im sure when he was filming Star Wars he didnt know Darth Vader was really Lukes dad but if the director says thats how it is then thats how it is.

Blade Runner is so far from the Philip K dicks novel to make his original character outline irellevant. Blade Runner is not Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep.

So that leaves Ridely Scott and the screen writer you mention. Ridley Scott has been saying for a very long time that he wasnt happy with the cut of Blade Runner that originally ran in theatres and he is hardly reknowned for milking his films and shafting his fans. He says this is the way it is and thats fine with me, its his film, his vision.

The film has always been ambiguous and as i have already said i think the only person who has the final word on any ambiguity is the director.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ditto

Which is all bullshit, of course. All of Gaff's figurines say something. The unicorn, originally, signified uniqueness; being rare and special.

[...]

This can also be interpreted in many ways, for example that Deckard is an unique replicant because it was built to hunt other replicants...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Harrison Ford's opinion while interesting dosnt have any relevance. Im sure when he was filming Star Wars he didnt know Darth Vader was really Lukes dad but if the director says thats how it is then thats how it is.

Don't see how he could have known then, George didn't make that bit up till ESB...

Blade Runner is so far from the Philip K dicks novel to make his original character outline irellevant. Blade Runner is not Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep.

True, the novel is something totally different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this an argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is this an argument?

i'd prefer to think of it as a discussion.

Its come about because this is place for discussion for a group of sci fi/anime fans who have passionate opinions on sci fi/anime related topics.

As for dynamans reply to the star wars analogy - the point is that the actor is only privy to the details that the director gives them and so although they may have their own ideas they arent any kind of authority on the characters background.

Edited by Nicaragua

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They should have a catchy theme song for the new franchise...

Bladerunner! Running on the edge of something sharp!

Bladerunner! Something something that rhymes with sharp!

It's amazing how I don't get paid for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The film has always been ambiguous and as i have already said i think the only person who has the final word on any ambiguity is the director.

Frankly, to say off hand that one interpretation of a work is correct simply because the creator favors that view outside of the work it self is lazy, and down right poor critical thinking. The person who has final word on any ambiguity in a work is the viewer. Once a work has been made public the creator has no say in how it should be interpreted.

Scott is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else, but it should have no barring on how anyone else interprets the same situation.

That said, the reason I take so much issue with the unicorn dream sequence is that it utterly removes any ambiguity about Deckhands nature in the film. It's no longer open to interpretation whether his is or isn't, he now has to be because there's no other way Gaff could know about his dream. This is bad because it now robs the whole film of it's best element which is the disparity between the inhuman actions of the human character and the humanization of the non-human characters. Every other other piece of evidence that he's a replicant can be used to viewed as examples of his loss of humanity but that one scene can only be viewed one way unless you completely ignore it. When the question of human vs. replicant is completely ambiguous it leaves multiple interpretations open to exploration. By giving it a definitive answer it not only shoots down an entire line of thinking about what the film is trying to say, specifically the one that is closest to the intents of the original novel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought we already got a prequal to Blade Runner anyway, it was called "Battlestar Galactica."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, to say off hand that one interpretation of a work is correct simply because the creator favors that view outside of the work it self is lazy, and down right poor critical thinking. The person who has final word on any ambiguity in a work is the viewer. Once a work has been made public the creator has no say in how it should be interpreted.

Scott is entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else, but it should have no barring on how anyone else interprets the same situation.

[...]

Sure, but it's an amazing coincidence that Deckard's dream shows an unicorn and that Gaff makes an origami of an unicorn...

I mean, he could have dreamed about a fairy or anything else, or Gaff could have made an origami about anything except an unicorn, but these two characters have this one very particular thing in common: what else could this mean? And it isn't filmed like a trivial thing neither, or something you can simply ignore: the dream sequence lasts a long moment and makes a considerable break in the whole movie, and Gaff's origami is showed very closely during several seconds to make sure the audience understands what it represents... Hard to see anything else that Deckard's a replicant, or even a simple coincidence.

On the other hand, we could interpret Vador's reply to Luke about being his father as, for example, a way to fool him: after all, as long as we didn't witness the gametes fecondating each other, we can't be sure of anything... :rolleyes:

[...]

That said, the reason I take so much issue with the unicorn dream sequence is that it utterly removes any ambiguity about Deckhands nature in the film. It's no longer open to interpretation whether his is or isn't, he now has to be because there's no other way Gaff could know about his dream. This is bad because it now robs the whole film of it's best element which is the disparity between the inhuman actions of the human character and the humanization of the non-human characters. Every other other piece of evidence that he's a replicant can be used to viewed as examples of his loss of humanity but that one scene can only be viewed one way unless you completely ignore it. When the question of human vs. replicant is completely ambiguous it leaves multiple interpretations open to exploration. By giving it a definitive answer it not only shoots down an entire line of thinking about what the film is trying to say, specifically the one that is closest to the intents of the original novel.

I'm not sure to follow you here because I read the book a long time ago and I don't remember all the details but I don't see why a movie couldn't be different than the book it adapts – or, more precisely, different than your interpretation of the book.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...