Blade Runner 2

[J.T.B.]

Whereas I see it the opposite way, that it added an ambiguity that hadn't been there before. So even its impact on the ambiguity is ambiguous. That's what I'm saying -- it's just added one more thing for audiences to disagree about. The very fact that you and I perceive it in exactly opposite ways is proof of that.

No question people can disagree about it. But if the question is whether the movie is as editorially neutral on the subject in the '92 version as '82, I say it's not. The context of where and how the shot was added leaves me little doubt of what it was intended to imply.

Yes, her name was Irani in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep?

Just "Iran."

I read the novel for the first time a couple of months ago and I was intrigued to notice that Deckard does find himself questioning whether or not he's an android himself after his encounter with another cop who is unknowingly an android (Dick never used the term replicant or blade runner).

Deckard and Resch are both human, they test each other. Resch worked for androids and didn't know it, though.

The question is likewise left unanswered with Deckard concluding that it doesn't matter, partially because of his obsession with having a real pet as oppose to android version, a major theme from the novel that's absent from the film (aside from the presence of Rachel's owl).

Yeah, though the empathy for living creatures does turn up in the V-K test questions which weren't changed from the book (especially the one about the photo of the nude on the bearskin rug: androids focus on the naked woman while humans key in on the dead bear).

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

(especially the one about the photo of the nude on the bearskin rug: androids focus on the naked woman while humans key in on the dead bear).

*dies*

 

[Christopher]

No question people can disagree about it. But if the question is whether the movie is as editorially neutral on the subject in the '92 version as '82, I say it's not. The context of where and how the shot was added leaves me little doubt of what it was intended to imply.

Imply, yes, of course, but implication is not proof. It just brought the possibility more into the open.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Just "Iran."

Er, yes, that's what I meant.

Deckard and Resch are both human, they test each other. Resch worked for androids and didn't know it, though.

Damn, my memory sucks. Of course, you're right, although I seem to recall Deckard having some trouble believing the results.

Yeah, though the empathy for living creatures does turn up in the V-K test questions which weren't changed from the book (especially the one about the photo of the nude on the bearskin rug: androids focus on the naked woman while humans key in on the dead bear).

Ah, yes, I think did pick up on that connection while reading the book. I haven't watched the film since reading the novel but I'm sure I would've noticed it.

 

[Nightowl1701]

“The options for which character will return include Rutger Hauer’s Roy Batty, Daryl Hannah’s Pris, Sean Young’s Rachael or maybe even Harrison Ford himself as a young Deckard,” the report says

Of those four options, it's gotta be Rachael. There's no reason to bring back Pris, bringing back Roy (unless in flashback) would cheapen his story arc from the original, and a CGI Deckard would get either laughed or booed off the screen. Having old Deckard be haunted by the ghostly image of the love he lost decades ago (either to the four-year life span, Gaff or some other tragedy) would be a perfectly noir way to continue his story.

 

[Tosk]

If there is a CGI '82 model, my money is on Deckard. K will track down a believed-to-be-human Deckard, who does whatever the story requires of him, then they'll spring a young Deckard copy on us, revealing that he is a Rep after all.

 

[Deckerd]

Not necessarily. Copy of an actual human a la Doc Zimmerman.

 

[jaime]

Yes, her name was Irani in Do Androids Dream of Electric Sleep?

I read the novel for the first time a couple of months ago and I was intrigued to notice that Deckard does find himself questioning whether or not he's an android himself after his encounter with another cop who is unknowingly an android (Dick never used the term replicant or blade runner). The question is likewise left unanswered with Deckard concluding that it doesn't matter, partially because of his obsession with having a real pet as oppose to android version, a major theme from the novel that's absent from the film (aside from the presence of Rachel's owl).


Where did you get that synopsis?

He's human in the book. Androids can't use the Mercer machine, and have no inclination to do so. They are also more distinctively in the bad guy model.

 

[jaime]

Thanks.

It's always good to have a source backing up claims like that.


I'm only against that because it seems unnecessary. All of them are dead except Deckard and possibly Rachel.

I'm more interested by this claim: "noting that director Denis Villeneuve (“Sicario,” “Arrival”) hinted that his new film will “take care of” the mystery surrounding Deckard’s humanity."

The interview implied he could take care of it by leaving it intact. Though who knows.

 

[jaime]

If there is a CGI '82 model, my money is on Deckard. K will track down a believed-to-be-human Deckard, who does whatever the story requires of him, then they'll spring a young Deckard copy on us, revealing that he is a Rep after all.

That wouldn't necessarily mean that anyway...one of the Junked scenes had Tyrell as a replicant copy of the actual Tyrell who was sort of dead/frozen.

 

[jaime]

Of those four options, it's gotta be Rachael. There's no reason to bring back Pris, bringing back Roy (unless in flashback) would cheapen his story arc from the original, and a CGI Deckard would get either laughed or booed off the screen. Having old Deckard be haunted by the ghostly image of the love he lost decades ago (either to the four-year life span, Gaff or some other tragedy) would be a perfectly noir way to continue his story.

I think this is the best option. It also squares Sean Young stating isn't in the movie (if it's a cgi double, she technically isn't) with the fact she met Ridley in the run up (likeness rights and maybe voiceover work offer) and could make it a 'surprise' that ties in with the film in a meta way. Also, a cgi Rachael is much easier to do convincingly. While almost all cgi resurrections in films have been male, that is changing and the female face is significantly easier to render convincingly, especially one with make up. (Look at resurrected Audrey Hepburn for advertising versus young Flynn/Clu in Tron Legacy. I haven't seen rogue one yet, but I hear that had excellent cgi actors.)

There's also already been cgi of Rachael an Tyrell, but I don't think they used scanning.

 

[Captain of the USS Averof]

I haven't seen rogue one yet, but I hear that had excellent cgi actors.

Excellent male actor, mediocre female actress.

 

[J.T.B.]

Imply, yes, of course, but implication is not proof. It just brought the possibility more into the open.

Which is all I've been saying.

Damn, my memory sucks. Of course, you're right, although I seem to recall Deckard having some trouble believing the results.

Well, it's a PKD book, most of them it helps to read two or three times!

 

[JD]

Thanks.

It's always good to have a source backing up claims like that.


I'm only against that because it seems unnecessary. All of them are dead except Deckard and possibly Rachel.

Are all of the Replicants unique individuals, or are they like the Skin Job Cylons in BSG, with hundreds or thousands of them all having the same few faces?

If there is a CGI '82 model, my money is on Deckard. K will track down a believed-to-be-human Deckard, who does whatever the story requires of him, then they'll spring a young Deckard copy on us, revealing that he is a Rep after all.

That was my first thought as well, especially after I saw the part about it answering whether or not Deckard was a Replicant once and for all.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

Are all of the Replicants unique individuals, or are they like the Skin Job Cylons in BSG, with hundreds or thousands of them all having the same few faces?

In the film, they're all unique individuals.

In the novel, for the most part, I believe they're suppose to be their own individuals. However, Deckard does discover that Pris looks a lot like Rachael but with a completely different personality. I don't remember if that was a fluke or a regular occurrence.

 

[JD]

OK, that rules out one way I thought they might bring somebody back then. I thought maybe we could get a scene where we see Roy Batty's face, but it turns out it's another version of his model, and he's actually a good guy. Kind of a Data to the first Roy's Lore.

 

[Set Harth]

I thought maybe we could get a scene where we see Roy Batty's face, but it turns out it's another version of his model, and he's actually a good guy.

"Come with me if you want to live!"

 

[Tosk]

OK, that rules out one way I thought they might bring somebody back then. I thought maybe we could get a scene where we see Roy Batty's face, but it turns out it's another version of his model, and he's actually a good guy. Kind of a Data to the first Roy's Lore.

It doesn't really rule anything out. The 'rules' of the Blade Runner universe are whatever the filmmakers say they are. Just because the first film implied something, doesn't mean the sequel can't go in another direction.

Heck, the first film itself has trouble keeping it all straight.

Why VK Leon if you can just bring up a file photo of him? Does Deckard know what Zhora looks like? If so, why all the coy mucking around? If not, why didn't he look at her file? If Replicants are illegal on Earth, why is Deckard so blaise about Rachael? How does Roy know Deckard's name? Why do all the Replicants display emotions, even the ones who aren't close to their expiration date yet? You can come up with answers to these questions pretty easily, but the film never bothers to.

 

[Christopher]

It doesn't really rule anything out. The 'rules' of the Blade Runner universe are whatever the filmmakers say they are. Just because the first film implied something, doesn't mean the sequel can't go in another direction.

Ohh, yes. There's a long history of movie sequels rewriting the rules/continuity, from Frankenstein to Planet of the Apes to Highlander to countless others.

 

[Deckerd]

Why VK Leon if you can just bring up a file photo of him? Does Deckard know what Zhora looks like? If so, why all the coy mucking around? If not, why didn't he look at her file? If Replicants are illegal on Earth, why is Deckard so blaise about Rachael? How does Roy know Deckard's name? Why do all the Replicants display emotions, even the ones who aren't close to their expiration date yet? You can come up with answers to these questions pretty easily, but the film never bothers to.

Why bother making the film? It's not like this one was a classic or anything. It's designed as a set of 8 vignettes and the viewer is supposed to draw their own conclusions. And argue about them.