Blade Runner 2049 Spoilers from post 444

happysunnydays · 28-02-2015 2:11pm

nix wrote: »

I mean that it will be mostly just drenched in CGI, making it another ugly film that will look extra ugly/dated in a few years.

Unlike the original which has no cgi and looks amazing to this day.
.

Sorry man! ...I get you now. Yeah nothing can beat the physical sets and the actors prefer them too...gets them into the world appartently!
Was watching a bit of the new Total Recall last night, in one sense the scale was impressive for the car chase but it seems like sometimes these Cgi built environments can't get the physics or lighting exactly spot on....has this fakeness to it and ends up taking from the viewer experience......then on the other end the 'Fifth Element' got it very spot on and they had less of the technology that they have now.

Technocentral · 28-02-2015 9:52pm

I predict it's going to be a real humdinger!

MfMan · 02-03-2015 11:31am

Tony EH wrote: »

Deckard being an android has always been a stupid idea and one that Scott has been trying to jimmy into 'Blade Runner' for years after the picture was actually made.

But, it makes zero sense to have Deckard as a replicant.

It makes even LESS sense to have him as a replicant that can become an OAP.

That would be just about the most stupidest thing I have seen in a sci-fi film. Especially one that considers itself to be serious.

Can't agree. It makes the film wonderfully ambiguous, 'setting a thief to catch a thief'. For me, it's what makes the unicorn-dream sequence a moment of genius.

"How can it not know what it is?"

humanji · 02-03-2015 11:56am

Tony EH wrote: »

Deckard being an android has always been a stupid idea and one that Scott has been trying to jimmy into 'Blade Runner' for years after the picture was actually made.

But, it makes zero sense to have Deckard as a replicant.

It makes even LESS sense to have him as a replicant that can become an OAP.

That would be just about the most stupidest thing I have seen in a sci-fi film. Especially one that considers itself to be serious.

In fairness, he was never trying to jimmy it into the original. It was there and the studios insisted it be jimmied out. I much prefer it. It adds so much more to the story and gives the characters more weight. Especially when you take that according to the documentary, Tyrell was also a replicant.

But how they're going to fit Deckard into this one is beyond me. Of all the scenarios I can think of, none come out sounding too good at all. I'd love it to be even half as enjoyable as I found the original, but I just can't see that happening. Hope I'm wrong.

Tony EH · 02-03-2015 2:22pm

It wasn't in the book and it wasn't in the original script. None of the actors were aware of Deckard even possibly being a replicant or even thinking about it.

It's definitely a case of Scott trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

I think it's just silly and completely unnecessary.

Tony EH · 02-03-2015 2:34pm

MfMan wrote: »

Can't agree. It makes the film wonderfully ambiguous, 'setting a thief to catch a thief'. For me, it's what makes the unicorn-dream sequence a moment of genius.

"How can it not know what it is?"

But, it's not. It's just stupid when you actually think about it.

First of all, Ford never plays Deckard as a replicant. He shows genuine emotion throughout the film as well. Not only that he can be sarcastic, hateful and funny too. All abilities that are beyond the latest Nexus 6 model, or even Rachel, who's a pet project of Tyrell.

He's noticeably weaker than the robots he's chasing and only gets the better of the by fortune or the intervention of some other character. Every replicant is on the verge of defeating him with the greatest of ease.

Roy has to rescue him in the end and is visibly far superior in strength.

Why send a shit robot after other far stronger robots? That's just fücking dumb.

Plus, the police dept. get Deckard in because they want the old magic back. The old magic. That implies that they've known Deckard for a long time. It would would require the entire police dept. to in on a conspiracy if Deckard was a robot.

Again, that's just dumb.

I think it may have been muted by Scott that Deckard could be a replicant half way through making 'Blade Runner', but rightly the studio thought that that was a stupid idea and I agree with them. Clearly Ford thought it was dumb and certainly not a thing that was discussed with him prior to shooting. M. Emmet Walsh (who plays police chief Bryant) also thought that the idea was thick, when he was asked about it in an interview years a decade after the film was released.

If people are happy with the "he is" or "is he or isn't he", that's all well and good. But the film couldn't work for me on that level. But it'll be a real problem, if Deckard DOES in fact turn out to be a replicant in 'Blade Runner II', because at 72 Ford is noticeably older than he was in in 1982 and that will just be about the dumbest thing of all.

humanji · 02-03-2015 2:56pm

Tony EH wrote: »

It wasn't in the book and it wasn't in the original script. None of the actors were aware of Deckard even possibly being a replicant or even thinking about it.

It's definitely a case of Scott trying to force a square peg into a round hole.

I think it's just silly and completely unnecessary.

It was in the original script, put there by the writers. They didn't even intend to. Each thought it was the other who came up with the idea and both ran with it. When they brought the idea to Scott, he loved it. But the studio insisted on the happier ending. There's an interview with the writers somewhere, that I'll try to dig out.

It's thematically in tune to the original story, which the first cut wasn't. It's about what it means to be human, and how the replicants are more human than the actual humans. All the emotions they're not meant to feel, they feel. But the human characters don't, and their lives are shown to be empty as a result. Even Deckard believing he was human was enough to hold him back.

Both versions can stand up to scrutiny, but the replicant Deckard version isn't as unbelievable or silly as you make it out to be.

if Deckard DOES in fact turn out to be a replicant in 'Blade Runner II', because at 72 Ford is noticeably older than he was in in 1982 and that will just be about the dumbest thing of all.

And that I fully agree with. It would be hilarious, though.

Tony EH · 02-03-2015 4:13pm

humanji wrote: »

It was in the original script, put there by the writers. They didn't even intend to. Each thought it was the other who came up with the idea and both ran with it. When they brought the idea to Scott, he loved it. But the studio insisted on the happier ending. There's an interview with the writers somewhere, that I'll try to dig out.

I've read Francher's original script and I certainly do not recall anything definite about Deckard being a replicant.

But, later Francher said that the question is ok, but the answer will be stupid.

humanji wrote: »

It's thematically in tune to the original story, which the first cut wasn't. It's about what it means to be human, and how the replicants are more human than the actual humans. All the emotions they're not meant to feel, they feel. But the human characters don't, and their lives are shown to be empty as a result. Even Deckard believing he was human was enough to hold him back.

In the novel, Deckard is 100% human. But he does have another detective check him out. All the way through the novel however, he struggles with his humanity and dreads the idea of killing a human by mistake and that the job is making him colder and less emotional. Like the robots he's killing. The robots in the book aren't half as philosophical as they are in the film, but they're just as cold and uncaring.

humanji wrote: »

Both versions can stand up to scrutiny, but the replicant Deckard version isn't as unbelievable or silly as you make it out to be.

I don't think the "Deckard is a replicant" holds up well at all.

humanji wrote: »

And that I fully agree with. It would be hilarious, though.

It would be a disaster and destroy another part of Ridley Scotts film legacy. He's already dented Alien with the, frankly, stupid 'Prometheus' and having a "robot" OAP Deckard would kill 'Blade Runner' in a single instant, regardless of where one stands on the robot Deckard thing.

But, he certainly wouldn't be the first director of that generation to go back and undo all the great work they did. That's for sure.

Mickeroo · 02-03-2015 4:17pm

Scott could make the sequel a family comedy, maybe give Deckard a talking animal sidekick and I still don't think it would undo any of the great work he did in his earlier career.

pixelburp · 02-03-2015 5:12pm

Mickeroo wrote: »

Scott could make the sequel a family comedy, maybe give Deckard a talking animal sidekick and I still don't think it would undo any of the great work he did in his earlier career.

I don't think that's completely true: yes, all versions of the original Blade Runner will continue to exist. Any sequel, poorly handled, will only sully the ambiguity and mystery that forms a large part of the 1982 film's cultural impact. Part of the whole success of Blade Runner in the first place revolves around that inconclusive ending, the teased notions of whether Deckard truly was a replicant. A sequel could end up being a very clumsy, ill thought out postscript to one of the more perfectly self-contained universes in cinema

Technocentral · 02-03-2015 5:56pm

Odd how people can't wait for a seventh Star Wars film but baulk at a second BR

pixelburp · 02-03-2015 6:04pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Odd how people can't wait for a seventh Star Wars film but baulk at a second BR

They're two completely different (sets of) films, based on two completed different modes of storytelling. What's your point?

Technocentral · 02-03-2015 6:09pm

pixelburp wrote: »

They're two completely different (sets of) films, based on two completed different modes of storytelling. What's your point?

Point is simple, new film and director for SW films welcomed positively but for new BR only negative comments. I'm looking forward to it if no one else is.

pixelburp · 02-03-2015 6:30pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Point is simple, new film and director for SW films welcomed positively but for new BR only negative comments. I'm looking forward to it if no one else is.

I just don't follow, just seems like simplistic cherry-picking. Star Wars is a saga, a series of sci-fi myth - it's literally episodic. Episode VII doesn't surprise because that's the genetics of the narrative, the clue's in the title. Blade Runner is a self-contained, once off story about the human condition that warrants no return to the universe because ostensibly it was never written as a precursor to a longer form.

If anything, Blade Runner's legacy is less about the story, and more about the setting. It has been the catalyst for future visions and sci-fi as a whole since its release, to the point where a sequel could simply appear as derivative of other sources, despite being the originator of it all - look at 'John Carter'.

to be honest, most comments I've read haven't been negative, they've been head-scratching expression of "Huh? Really? Why?"

_Kaiser_ · 02-03-2015 7:32pm

Tony EH wrote: »

It makes even LESS sense to have him as a replicant that can become an OAP.

That would be just about the most stupidest thing I have seen in a sci-fi film. Especially one that considers itself to be serious.

Meh, it's been/being done..

Fully agree though - just as with this new Terminator film, it makes no sense in the context of the story and is just an attempt by the studio to shoehorn in the original actor for the nostalgia fans and boost box office takings (although at least they're not talking about castrating Deckard I suppose)

And also just like the new Terminator film, it's a movie no-one asked for

These reboots/prequels/watered-down CGI-overload films of the past 10-15 years really need to die a death.

karaokeman · 02-03-2015 10:05pm

Technocentral wrote: »

Point is simple, new film and director for SW films welcomed positively but for new BR only negative comments. I'm looking forward to it if no one else is.

But the new Star Wars trilogy has been hinted at for over 30 years due to reports of the saga being a 9-part series. News of a Blade Runner sequel has only came around quite recently, so fans are more likely to have accepted it as a standalone film.

Technocentral · 02-03-2015 10:53pm

_Kaiser_ wrote:

And also just like the new Terminator film, it's a movie no-one asked for ï¿¼ These reboots/prequels/watered-down CGI-overload films of the past 10-15 years really need to die a death.

I asked I asked for it!

Nalz · 27-03-2015 4:38pm

Wossack wrote: »

As a big BR fan, Im entirely lukewarm about this news

elaborate

Skerries · 27-03-2015 5:40pm

Some films just don't need a sequel, end of

Nalz · 28-03-2015 5:31am

Skerries wrote: »

Some films just don't need a sequel, end of

If they can capture what was before then I don't see the problem... It can never alter or change the film before it.

End of :-rollseyes

JP Liz V1 · 16-04-2015 11:20pm

Ryan Gosling in talks to join http://variety.com/2015/film/news/ryan-gosling-to-star-in-blade-runner-sequel-1201474022/

Skerries · 16-04-2015 11:59pm

Is he going to play a replicant? Or will he be...
...
...
...
A real human being?

TherapyBoy · 17-04-2015 1:07am

..and a real hero

crybaby · 17-04-2015 9:12am

So if he wasn't mean to be a replicant then what was the point of the unicorn scene?

Nalz · 17-04-2015 9:46am

crybaby wrote: »

So if he wasn't mean to be a replicant then what was the point of the unicorn scene?

Where did you see he wont be a replicant?

Skerries · 17-04-2015 12:35pm

crybaby is talking about Deckard

Skerries · 17-04-2015 12:36pm

crybaby wrote: »

So if he wasn't mean to be a replicant then what was the point of the unicorn scene?

that scene was only put back in for the final cut

shazzerman · 17-04-2015 1:36pm

That unicorn scene is a disturbing element in the film; Scott unwisely put it in to pander to the cult of Is-He-Isn't-He-A-Replicant that a lot of viewers - who were not paying attention to the actual film - got all het up about back in the day. If Deckard is a replicant the film is a fraud.

Skerries · 17-04-2015 1:59pm

Is Deckard a Replicant?

Is Deckard a Replicant?

This question causes the most debate among 'Blade Runner' fans. The different versions of 'Blade Runner' support this notion to differing degrees. One might argue that in the 1982 theatrical release, Deckard is not a replicant but in 'Blade Runner Dirctors Cut', he is. This is mainly due to the addition of the 'Unicorn dream'.

In the book 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' Decker is human. He takes the Voight-Kampff test and passes it, because he is not totally sure himself.

In the film it is less clear. Ridley Scott wanted to make it deliberately ambiguous. Ridley Scott himself has stated that although he made it appear either way, he also intentionally introduced enough evidence to support the notion, and (as far as he is concerned), Deckard is a replicant.

Ford and Ridley argued on set over whether the audience should be told that Deckard was a replicant. It could be that this very ambiguity, and the questions that it raises that is at the heart of the film's enduring popularity.

There is no definitive answer, but I've collected together all the various clues from different sources:

The case FOR

- Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have stated that Deckard was meant to be a replicant. In Details magazine (US) October 1992 Ford says:
"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

- The shooting script had a voice-over where Deckard says, "I new it on the roof that night. We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!"

- Gaff knew that Deckard dreamt of a unicorn, and places a unicorn origami outside his room, therefore Gaff knew what dreams that Deckard had been implanted with. (Blade Runner Directors Cut only)

- Replicants have a penchant for photographs, because it gives them a tie to their non-existent past. Deckard's flat is packed with photos, and none of them are recent or in colour. Despite her memories, Rachael needed a photo as an emotional cushion. Likewise, Deckard would need photos, despite his memory implants. Rachael plays the piano, and Deckard has a piano in his flat.

- Gaff tells him "You've done a man's job, sir!". Early drafts of the script have him then add: "But are you sure you are man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here."

- Only a replicant could survive the beatings that Deckard takes, and then struggle up the side of a building with two dislocated fingers.

- Bryant's threat "If you're not a cop, you're little people" might be an allusion to Deckard being created solely for police work.

- Deckard's eyes glow (yellow-orange) when he is washing the blood out of his mouth in his bathroom, and when he tells Rachael that he wouldn't go after her, "but someone would". Deckard is standing behind Rachael, and he's out of focus.

- Roy knew Deckard's name, yet he was never told it. Some speculate that Deckard might have been part of Roy's off-world rebellion, but was captured by the police and used to hunt down the others. In that case, Bryant is including Deckard among the five escaped replicants.

- When Batty saves him from falling off the building he lifts him up by the arm saying "kinship!" implying that Deckard is a replicant just like Roy Batty and Batty knows this.

- Inspector Bryant calls Deckard out of retirement, saying that the Nexus-6 replicants are too dangerous, and that Deckard is the only one who can handle them.
Bryant: I need ya, Deck. This is a bad one, the worst yet. I need the old blade runner, I need your magic. I need the best.

- The police would not risk a human to hunt four powerful replicants, particularly since replicants were designed for such dangerous work. Of course Deckard would have to think he was human or he might not be willing to hunt down other replicants.

- Gaff seems to follow Deckard everywhere -- he is at the scene of all the Replicant retirings almost immediately. Gaff is always with Deckard when the chief is around. This suggests that Gaff is the real BR, and that Deckard is only a tool Gaff uses for the dirty work.

- Rachael tearfully asks Deckard if he has ever taken the Voight-Kampff test himself. Deckard does not respond.

The case AGAINST

- A major point of the film was to show Deckard (The Common Man) the value of life. "What's it like to live in fear?" If all the main characters are replicants, the contrast between humans and replicants is lost.

- Rachael had an implanted unicorn dream and Deckard's reverie in Blade Runner Directors Cut was a result of having seen her implants. Gaff may have seen Rachael's implants at the same time Deckard did, perhaps while they were at Tyrell's.

- Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police trust Deckard?

- Having Deckard as a replicant implies a conspiracy between the police and Tyrell.

- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant would have an ex-wife.

- If Deckard was a replicant designed to be a Blade Runner, why would they give him bad memories of the police force? Wouldn't it be more effective if he were loyal and happy about his work?

- Deckard was not a replicant in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, although he has another Blade Runner test him at one point just to be sure. All the bounty hunters in the book question whether they are Replicants themselves.

- Ridley Scott said that the Replicants eyes did not really glow, it was simply a 'cinematic technique', so if it is not an important characteristic of a Replicant, it isn't important that Deckards eyes glow either.

shazzerman · 17-04-2015 2:05pm

All very well, but if Deckard is a replicant - as we must lean towards because of the unwise insertion of one brief scene - then the film is all the lesser for it, and not the rich treatise on the philosophy of humanity it is when all the film's strongest elements leave us in no doubt that Deckard is human.

Blade Runner 2049 **Spoilers from post 444**

Comments

Blade Runner 2049 Spoilers from post 444