Looks Like Blade Runner 2 Happening With Ridley And Harrison!!!

[Hot Chocolate]

The movie is not the book. it's a different version of events, a different interpretation. It is not the same entity, so its not beholden to the book's version of the story.

Only thing the books and movie share is some names and that's it

If this movie makes a new story I'm all for it but a true sequel I got no need to see one since the first said everything it needed to say

 

[Cousin_Itt]

It's going to be so so, become another cult classic and be rereleased in 10 different director cuts. I have no interest in seeing it unless they completely get rid of Ford. Even then, probably when it comes out on Netflix.

 

[Loopz]

As many problems as Prometheus had, I actually felt like thematically, that movie had a lot more in common with Blade Runner than Alien. The crew of that ship were on the same fools' errand as the poor Replicants: a mad quest to meet their maker. And they'd suffer largely the same fate. Sadly, Ridley has now twice experienced the pain of losing a brother, and I can only imagine how Tony Scott's death might yet again be coloring his preparation for this, as did the death of his younger brother shortly before he agreed to direct BR.

 

[Late]

Hi Loopz, long time no see.

 

[roker]

zzzzzz


wake me up when (if ever) this goes into production

 

[alec]

I finally saw Prometheus two weeks ago. I liked it a good bit. It was basically the one paragraph synopsis I read stretched out over two and a half hours. It's no Alien, but there can be only one Alien. I'm sure this will be just as good as they'll play it safe and won't go all Crystal Skull on us. No reason to be disappointed. It's the new Star Wars that I'm skeptical about.

 

[$CASHMONEY$]

Blade Runner 2: Deckard shits his pants.

sounds good to me...

 

[Sex Machine]

I'm going to hope to like the sequal, but I'm going to keep my standards pretty low.

Also I'm in the camp that I liked Deckard as a human.

 

[OMFG]

I'll catch the sequel (if it ever comes out) on video as I don't have any expectations for it.

While the original movie was good due to a futuristic atmosphere portrayed on film, some of the important themes from the book were missed. The omission of Mercerism, Deckard's relationship with his wife, the details of status by owning an artificial animal and the repair team/vet service played a part in creating this story that surpassed a generic robot hunt film. There is no real mention of World War Terminus and the scope of the damage it caused the earth aside from the off colonies being formed. The only positive aspect that an older Harrison Ford could bring to a new film would be a better representation of Deckard in the book (older, jaded, etc).

If anyone gets a chance, check out the comic version of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep: Dust to Dust.

 

[GutsDozer]

What if some miracle happens and it's amazing? Of course I don't know how it's possible without RUtger Hauer. Who is indeed awesome. Anyone catch Hobo with A Shotgun?

 

[greedostick]

Ah... I am glad someone mentioned Prometheus. I was coming in here to mention that. I really want to know what the fuck is going on with the sequel. I know a lot of people bashed it, but I personally loved it. It is one of those movies that really makes you think, and you can notice new things every time you watch it. If the sequel is done well, and revolves around slaying aliens on their home planet, is could be awesome. That move really made me think more than any movie since Memento.

But Blade Runner is exciting, even though I hate to be excited for new movie sequels because I am normally disappointed.

I also heard there may be a new Beetlejuice move, and everyone in the original said they would be in if they got the opportunity. Crossing my fingers, as Beetlejuice is one of my all time favorites.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1722292/beetlejuice-2-michael-keaton-tim-burton/

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/...irms-shes-in-talks-for-beetlejuice-2-20131119

 

[LoneSage]

Ah... I am glad someone mentioned Prometheus. I was coming in here to mention that. I really want to know what the fuck is going on with the sequel. I know a lot of people bashed it, but I personally loved it. It is one of those movies that really makes you think, and you can notice new things every time you watch it. If the sequel is done well, and revolves around slaying aliens on their home planet, is could be awesome. That move really made me think more than any movie since Memento.

But Blade Runner is exciting, even though I hate to be excited for new movie sequels because I am normally disappointed.

I also heard there may be a new Beetlejuice move, and everyone in the original said they would be in if they got the opportunity. Crossing my fingers, as Beetlejuice is one of my all time favorites.

http://www.mtv.com/news/1722292/beetlejuice-2-michael-keaton-tim-burton/

http://www.rollingstone.com/movies/...irms-shes-in-talks-for-beetlejuice-2-20131119

what did it make you think about

 

[joe8]

I finally saw Prometheus two weeks ago. I liked it a good bit. It was basically the one paragraph synopsis I read stretched out over two and a half hours. It's no Alien, but there can be only one Alien. I'm sure this will be just as good as they'll play it safe and won't go all Crystal Skull on us. No reason to be disappointed. It's the new Star Wars that I'm skeptical about.

That was the problem with Crystal Skull, they overdid the special effects (CGI), especially at the end. The old Indiana Jones movies were all done without CGI, so it didn't fit in with the others (and the films were supposed to be a tribute to movie serials from the 30's and 40's, so why would you use CGI?). But I guess it's hard (uneconomical) to make sci-fi/action movies without CGI these days.

 

[greedostick]

what did it make you think about

There are so many unanswered or unexplained parts in that movie. You can look online for a lot of the answers. For 1 I wasnt exactly sure in the beginning what happened when the guy sacrificed himself, then why the aliens tried to go back at the end and kill them. Why Guy Pearce played a 80 year old man, then faked his death. What david said to the alien guy before he ripped his head off. Why David poisioned the main characters boyfriend. And many more things that were unexplained, or you had to piece together. I could go on about this for awhile.

 

[caleb1883]

I think the reason sequels don't work is usually what made the first so special cannot be duplicated, or the creative team involved don't know how to duplicate it. With Blade Runner I'm guessing it can't be duplicated. Everyone who is a fan should watch the making of Blade Runner. They put so much crazy, crazy amount of detail into making it. The set where the street scenes were shot was so detailed that crews from other movies on other lots in the studio would come over and hang out on breaks because it was so fascinating and felt so realistic. Even though they built models for all the buildings they put in painstaking effort and hours to keep them from looking like model buildings.

So many other things happen, as with many works of genius, by accident or as a result of unforseen conditions. Harrison Ford's working conditions, aka not getting along with Ridley caused him to give the perfectly detached performance that keeps you guessing about whether he is a replicant or not. Ironically considering the subject matter of the film, you can't replicate that kind of stuff. Multiple versions of the movie exist because of the politics of leaving the ending too open ended. I personally prefer the Final Cut, with my first experience being the original directors cut. But another part of what made it so cool was the multiple versions were more than just alternate endings, they were literally different interpretations each with it's own separate feel of exploring either him being a human, him being a replicant, or leaving it a big question.

Point is a lot of this stuff happened without planning it, and they won't be able to do it again. It will be forced, probably with too many corny inside references to the original. They'll try too hard this time and make it terrible.

 

[blotter12]

Google is calling their next phone Nexus X because they don't want to upset the trademark on Nexus 6. Could be telling, could be nothing.

If they can recreate the visual mood of the first film, that might even be enough for me if the plot is remotely good, it would be a bonus. Hopefully Ridley Scott played some Snatcher before writing the script.

What if some miracle happens and it's amazing? Of course I don't know how it's possible without RUtger Hauer. Who is indeed awesome. Anyone catch Hobo with A Shotgun?

Yeah. Great movie. So is Il Futuro.

 

[GutsDozer]

So in anticipation for the sequel Ridley recently revealed Deckard was indeed a Replicant. I always kind of assumed this but it kind of sucks that the ambiguous ending of the original film has been ruined.
http://www.epicstream.com/news/540/...ther+Deckard+is+A+Replicant+in+'Blade+Runner'

 

[smokehouse]

So in anticipation for the sequel Ridley recently revealed Deckard was indeed a Replicant. I always kind of assumed this but it kind of sucks that the ambiguous ending of the original film has been ruined.
http://www.epicstream.com/news/540/...ther+Deckard+is+A+Replicant+in+'Blade+Runner'

A film is a living, breathing art. I couldn't care less what he has to say about it. I formed my own opinion about that film years ago…which is what everyone should do...

 

[GutsDozer]

A film is a living, breathing art. I couldn't care less what he has to say about it. I formed my own opinion about that film years ago…which is what everyone should do...

Sound advice sir.

 

[SouthtownKid]

A film is a living, breathing art.

False. It is a story that someone wrote.

Their opinion about what they meant > your opinion about what they meant.

We've raised an entire participation-trophy generation of narcissists who believe their opinion has equal worth to anyone else's, and it's just not so. What's the point of art if the artist doesn't get to decide what their own art means?

 

[smokehouse]

False. It is a story that someone wrote.

Their opinion about what they meant > your opinion about what they meant.

We've raised an entire participation-trophy generation of narcissists who believe their opinion has equal worth to anyone else's, and it's just not so. What's the point of art if the artist doesn't get to decide what their own art means?

That's a pretty goofy statement man...I couldn't disagree more. Art is art and how one takes it in in individual. If you want to see the art through the eyes of its creator, go ahead. If not, see it your own way. There is no "right" way to view art. My statement leaves the interpretation wide open where as yours boxes it and creates a "right or wrong" way.

If you choose to put great stock in the thoughts of the art creator...go ahead. Hammering someone else for not doing that is rather closed minded...


Lastly...you're actually contradicting yourself a bit. If a story is written then sure, that can be fairly hard set (one of the few art forms that is fairly rigid at times). BUT...a film is often an interpretation of a story that can often differ for that story quite a bit. So...someone's take on a story that is put on film...I know many films that differ a ton from a previously written book.

 

[T.A.P.]

False. It is a story that someone wrote.

Their opinion about what they meant > your opinion about what they meant.

Because we all know authors/artists/film makers never change their interpretations of their own work over time.

 

[Taiso]

In the theatrical cut all of the important questions about humanity are there but presented through a different looking glass than we see in the Director's Cut (which I personally believe is the superior film and the one I take as the 'official' version). Rather than being a replicant, Deckard comes to accept replicants as a life form by experiencing their vibrant and unique traits after meeting them, hunting them falling in love with one of them and listening to one's last dying words. So even in the theatrical cut, where Deckard is human, the questions about humanity in a machine/construct are still effectively posed.

The heights of joy and the depths of sorrow experienced by the replicants are in both versions. But I still prefer the Director's Cut. It's a far more provocative version of the story and I think the movie works better without the gumshoe narrative (although I recognize that some like that aspect of the theatrical cut). I think the hollow existence of actual humans works better as a more vivid contrast to the individual qualities of the replicants when a human isn't talking over the strong transitional visuals.

 

[SouthtownKid]

Lastly...you're actually contradicting yourself a bit. If a story is written then sure, that can be fairly hard set (one of the few art forms that is fairly rigid at times). BUT...a film is often an interpretation of a story that can often differ for that story quite a bit.

No.

The film is it's own story. The film was written, then shot.

I'm not equating the film with the original novel, which was its own completely different story with a completely different plot and completely different point.


Your opinion of what 'Blade Runner' the movie was about and what everything meant counts for ZERO next to what Ridley Scott thinks.

But likewise, Ridley Scott's opinion of what the novel 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?' was about and what everything meant counts for ZERO next to what Philip K. Dick thought.

The person who had the idea gets to decide what that idea is. That's simple, and it's fair. The idea that some random person who has nothing to do with it gets to override the artist's intent is ridiculous and narcissistic.

Because we all know authors/artists/film makers never change their interpretations of their own work over time.

Okay, but if so, that's their right. Not some random shlub's.

 

[SouthtownKid]

And just to be clear, I agree that I liked it better before Scott felt the need to hand-hold everyone and spell everything out. I agree that him doing that takes something away from the experience of watching the movie.

But that doesn't mean there wasn't a right answer to the question of whether Deckard was a replicant in the movie.