Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by superdeluxe, Oct 9, 2013.
Unless you're Uwe Boll, there's no hope for him.
It's not pointless at all. The very question "Why do you want to do this?" is the most important one that a writer has to ask himself. Original films are usually inspired by an idea, a desire, the writer actually wants to tell something, not by the need to do something. The latter has never resulted in a good end product, in my opinion, especially not when there is an extremely long period between these films.
Sequels like Indiana Jones 4, or Die Hard 4, or Superman Returns, are the result of producers saying "We need another film! Writers, come up with something!". Prometheus was just like that as well, albeit being a prequel. In in my opinion, those kind of films always suck.
I wish filmmakers would ask themselves the question of why they are doing something more often.
I think the why of Prometheus was relatively sound from Scott's POV. He knew, from the beginning, that there was a lot more story to tell about the Alien universe than was ever touched on by any of the franchise films (AVP sub-genre notwithstanding). Who and what were the "Space Jockeys" and why did they have these ships with super-dangerous eggs?
Now, the execution of the idea, on the other hand, is up for debate.
I, for one, do hope that there is a Prometheus II, to hopefully correct/straighten out some of the oddities of the first one, but it won't break my heart if he opts for a Blade Runner II, either. I wonder if they'll get Olmos to reprise the roll of Gaff? And knowing the things he said about NuBSG possibly being in the same universe as Blade Runner (Replicants being humanity's latest stab at Cylon-like tech and Gaff being a descendant of Adama), will Scott let him play a little bit to that idea? He does seem to enjoy putting artificial humans in his films, and philosophically questioning if they're any more or less human than their human creators. Hell, for that matter, the Blade Runner and Alien universes may very well be the same, too...
Hm, okay, the story of the Space Jockey might have been interesting.
What is left unanswered in Blade Runner that needs to be dealt with in a sequel?
Don't know. IMO it was a much more subtle movie than Alien with deeper philosophical underpinnings. Perhaps some further exploration of the human aspects of a whole new generation of replicants who are completely self-aware by all definitions and biologically indiscernible from humans in every way. Does that then make humanity that much closer to God as being a creator species or would it marginalize the significance of humanity, or intelligent life in general, in the universe? Does it call into question the very definition of what it means to be human, or even alive? "Are you alive? Prove it!"
NuBSG touched on this a little, which is why I am thinking it could very well be a thing in BR2. Olmos is a lot bigger name now than he was with the first one. I wouldn't be surprised if he tried to use his clout and general involvement in the project to pitch the idea. Certainly not mention BSG by name anywhere in the film, but thematically similar.
Other than that, I have no clue.
I'm sure film folks talk about lots of stuff that never gets made.
I think we should take it at face value that the Batty-group replicants couldn't have it undone. This probably applies to typical Nexus 6 replicants. If Rachael is an "experiment" I suppose we could call her an advanced Nexus 6 or perhaps a proto-Nexus 7. It's not a question of getting it undone in her case ( or Deckard's, if we assume him to be a similarly advanced replicant ) if there is nothing to undo.
I saw Blade Runner opening weekend.
My problem with assuming that Deckard is a replicant is that it undermines what I see as the thematic structure of the film. The following is true for all the retirements in the film, but, as one of the film's emotional high points, Zhora's death especially has impact precisely because we are made to wonder just what it is that differentiates her death from a human's. If Deckard is a human behaving like a replicant in the midst of replicants behaving like humans, then that highlights the question of human versus replicant, by offering us some contrast for comparison. If Deckard's a replicant, where's the contrast? There is no lesson for Roy to teach Deckard in valuing the life of a replicant, if Deckard is already a replicant.
I recall, though I don't have any link, that Ford didn't like thi idea of Deckard being a replicant. I would expect for many of the same thoughts you have here. His being a replicant works for me because I find Deckard learning to feel for people through Rachel and Roy equally compelling.
Maybe it will be about an unaging Rachel leaving Deckard's old ass. Or is that only in the old ending? I don't think I ever got around to watching the new cut.
I feel the same way. I've heard rumblings about Deckard being a replicant, but I just never got that sense in all the times I've seen the movie. There's a lot of surreal imagery in Blade Runner, but to me, the movie just seems to work best if the replicants are actually more human than Deckard is, IMO.
I find the beauty of the ending and the nobility of Deckerd recognizing the humanity in Rachael is severely undercut if Deckerd is just saving his own replicant ass and taking her along.
I do love that the "truth" of Blade Runner is up to each viewer. I've never really bought into Deckard being a replicant though. Something about it just doesn't sit right for me. Is he Nexus 6? And if so, why does he get his ass handed to him so soundly? And if not, why send an obviously inferior specimen to take down replicants anyway? Send a better one. Or send more than one human. Did they set up his whole life just to make him think he's a human instead of sending some other Blade Runner? To what end? What point is there to such an elaborate ruse?
For me, "Deckard = Replicant?" is just another of those half-thought out 'What If?' ideas that are littered throughout the film. Is the population of L.A. overcrowded or sparse? If Roy has "placement" tattoos on his body for plug-ins and what-not, why would you need a voight-kampff to detect a replicant? If replicants eyes glow under the right conditions, why can't that be used as a means of detection? And if the glow can't be proven to be a replicant trait, it means nothing that Deckards eyes glow in one scene. Gaff leaves a unicorn, showing that he was at Deckard's home and let Rachael live. If it means more, Deckard sure doesn't seem worried by the implication that his whole existence is not what he thought.
Oh yeah, a Blade Runner sequel...I nearly forgot.
Sure, bring it on. If it sucks, it doesn't damage anything. ALIEN is still every bit as good as it ever was, despite Prometheus. Raiders, Empire, and The Terminator are all still awesome...et cetera.
I could see Tyrel Corp looking to deal with the dying human race. Deckard and Rachel are an experiment to see if more ordinary human level replicants and their progeny would be resistant to the polutants in the environment that are breaking down the human genome and creating genetic defects. Tyrel isn't interested in Deckard fighting replicants, but in creating people capable of flourishing in the hostile environment Earth has become.
I could see a sequel using more of the book's background of the human race dying out on Earth, and taking up the possibility that Deckard was one of the escaped replicants from the first movie re-adjusted by the Tyrel Corp. That thought based on Roy's knowledge of experiment by the Corp which seemed a bit more than one might expect in a soldier/slave, the changing number of replicants in the script, and Roy recognizing Deckard when they'd never met.
The whole thing could just suck like Highlander 2, so like you said, that wouldn't change a thing about the first film.
The replicants could turn on the humans and hunt them across the stars.... hmmm, seems familiar.
I suppose it's happened before.
Sequels don't necessarily have to deal with unresolved issues from previous films at all.
I'm sure an imaginative writer could come up any number of good stories to tell within the Blade Runner universe, the fact that you can't doesn't mean it can't be done.
To my shame I must say I quite enjoyed some film of his I saw, where a guy dons a load of combat gear and goes on a killing spree. Although it was horribly exploitative, it was actually surprisingly competently filmed and performed, certainly compared to the few other films of his I have seen which were pure unmitigated garbage.
I definitely don't want a "Blade Runner" sequel because Ridley Scott will most likely continue his Deckard = replicant interpretation.
The screenplay writer vehemently disagreed with Scott's decision to retroactively insert that unicorn sequence (or "Legend" trailer) because it had not been intended to provide the interpretation that came out of it.
We could argue who actually does "own" a story. The screenplay writer or the director of the film?
Gaf's origamis were subtle comments on the situations of the film. Deckard was cowardous (chicken origami), a voyeur when going through other people's stuff (Peeping Tom origami) and the unicorn origami was merely a gesture of Gaf understanding what Deckard was looking for (to my knowledge the unicorn is a mythological symbol for the quest of achieving bliss, harmony and peace - which is obviously what the Deckard character needed most).
But Scott apparently had to trivialize these clever situation comments. What does the chicken origami tell us now? That Deckard wanted to leave the police station because he was dying to eat some KFC and Gaf knew?
Ridley Scott can continue to walk in George Lucas' footsteps. I don't care. I'm happy and content that unlike GL he gave people like me at least the opportunity to continue watching the theatrical edition of "Blade Runner".
My biggest problem with the "unicorn means Deckard is replicant" idea is that (according to one "clue") somehow Gaff knew exactly which thought to reference with his origami. Deckard talks earlier with Rachael about her memories of being young. She starts a story and he finishes it, knowing how the false memory goes. But Deckard daydreams at the piano (unless it really is a memory and unicorns exist in the BR universe) and Gaff even knows about that errant thought? Nah.
Worse than that even, is Ridley's "Alien and Blade Runner exist in the same universe" thing. I don't mind a little tongue-in-cheek sharing between them, but I'd rather not find out that Weyland bought out Tyrell.
It will probably happen again.
Separate names with a comma.