HOLY CRAP. RIDLEY SCOTT DIRECTING BLADE RUNNER SEQUEL. - Page 2

Perhaps Tyrell engineered the escape so he could test his new model?

I'm not saying that Batty & Co. were in on it, obviously, but Tyrell easily could have set conditions in play to allow such an eventual occurrence and then just waited for it to happen.

Are we overthinking all of this?  Yes, but as you already said, that's part of the fun of it.  Deck-A-Rep or not, Blade Runner is a wonderful film.

The strength/stamina of a character as evidence one way or another is a tricky measurement when you've got the huge variable of movie strength.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven 

I've always viewed this as a Kobayashi Maru situation. There is no answer, and that's fine. Isn't the fun in the debating? 

 

The audience is provided so little background on Deckard himself, or how the Bladerunner system works, or even how Replicant regulation works (surely there would be more escapes, and therefore more need for entire Bladerunner squads rather than pairs of burned out detectives), that anything is possible.

 

Tyrell likes to play chess. He's obviously fascinated by the Voight-Kampff test. Why is it so unreasonable that he would, in reaction to Leon's infiltration of the Tyrell Corporation, put a Nexus-7 out there on the case? By studying its reactions he can fine-tune the next model.

 

As for the whole debate about Deckard's strength, he scales the side of a building with broken fingers.

 

 

I appreciate what you're saying, I just feel like, as much as some feel that the whole idea Deckard is a replicant is unlikely, the unicorn, left by Gaff (who by being on the force would be in the know) really settles it. If Deckard's not a replicant, what on earth was that all about then? I've not seen anyone able to offer me an answer that doesn't seem even less likely

It's like the TOTAL RECALL situation, I like that it's somewhat ambiguous, at least enough that people who prefer to think it's unknowable can still look at things that way, but IMHO the music, combined with the fade to white, combined with the concept art for "blue skies on Mars", and then, like in BLADERUNNER, the director having come out on the side of a definitive ending.... means that there is a correct way to view things

I suppose it depends on which version you watch, which inherently muddies the argument: can there be a definitive answer if there are multiple versions of the movie? The first time I viewed the movie it was the theatrical cut, and I assumed at the time that Gaff (by leaving the Unicorn) was letting Deckard know he could've killed Rachel but chose not to, and they better leave town fast. 

Now I do prefer the Directors/Final Cut of Bladerunner, but is a "Director's Cut" the definitive cut? Take, for instance, Ridley Scott's Director's Cut of Alien, which fundamentally changes the pacing, fate of characters, and Alien lifestyle. 

Edited to add: arguing text rather than intent, one could argue that the "Unicorn vision" is something Deckard is aware of Rachel having (like the memory of the spider), and Gaff would be aware of it too. 

The "Final Cut" is Ridley's definitive version of Blade Runner.  The theatrical cut is Ridley's preferred version of Alien.

In both instances, the director's cuts that exist are really just alternate versions and nothing more.  Ridley has stated himself that he views neither of them as his true "director's cut".

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven 

I suppose it depends on which version you watch, which inherently muddies the argument: can there be a definitive answer if there are multiple versions of the movie? The first time I viewed the movie it was the theatrical cut, and I assumed at the time that Gaff (by leaving the Unicorn) was letting Deckard know he could've killed Rachel but chose not to, and they better leave town fast. 

 

Now I do prefer the Directors/Final Cut of Bladerunner, but is a "Director's Cut" the definitive cut? Take, for instance, Ridley Scott's Director's Cut of Alien, which fundamentally changes the pacing, fate of characters, and Alien lifestyle. 

 

I guess I view, in BR's case, the DC (I've not yet seen the FC) to be the more definitive version of the film. I saw the theatrical cut first, and I recall thinking the same thing you did about the unicorn, but my general understanding is that Scott lacked control over the theatrical cut of the film, and the DC, even though it wasn't made with him involved in a big way, represents his original vision to a greater degree. The fact they bothered to dress a horse up like a unicorn and shoot a dream sequence kind of says it all about the movie's original intentions

With ALIEN, my understanding is that what was in theaters in 1979 was basically a version of the film he was fine with, so I view the "directors cut" more as an experiment on his part. Fox paid him alot to come back and rework it, and he said that when he rewatched it he wanted to tighten up pacing because he looked at it differently than he did in '79. As for the deleted scenes, I don't recall him saying anyone forced his hand not to include them the first time (though for the record I enjoy Ripley arguing to leave the crew members behind)

So BR I view like KINGDOM OF HEAVEN, a situation where he didn't really get a fair shake his first time at bat, and so the theatrical cuts are not the official ones. I mean, Eva Green goes crazy for no real reason in the TC of KOH, but that doesn't mean it was Scott's intention to paint her as unstable

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

The "Final Cut" is Ridley's definitive version of Blade Runner.  The theatrical cut is Ridley's preferred version of Alien.

 

In both instances, the director's cuts that exist are really just alternate versions and nothing more.  Ridley has stated himself that he views neither of them as his true "director's cut".

Yes, I recall him even being uncomfortable with the "directors cut" label for the ALIEN rerelease

Sure, but removing the director's intent (I don't care what he said in an interview), we only have the text to analyze. The artist is not the art. There are, however, multiple versions of the text.

As a result, the question shouldn't be, "Is Deckard a replicant?" It should be, "Is Deckard a replicant in the workprint? The theatrical cut? The director's cut? The Final Cut?"

The theatrical cut doesn't lend much evidence, but it does raise the question. All versions have Rachel asking Deckard, "Have you ever taken that Voight-Kampff test yourself?" So the doubt was always meant to be there. 

The director's/Final Cut, however, are the only versions that attempt an answer, and even then it's ambiguous at best.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven 

Sure, but removing the director's intent (I don't care what he said in an interview), we only have the text to analyze. The artist is not the art. There are, however, multiple versions of the text.

 

As a result, the question shouldn't be, "Is Deckard a replicant?" It should be, "Is Deckard a replicant in the workprint? The theatrical cut? The director's cut? The Final Cut?"

 

The theatrical cut doesn't lend much evidence, but it does raise the question. All versions have Rachel asking Deckard, "Have you ever taken that Voight-Kampff test yourself?" So the doubt was always meant to be there. 

 

The director's/Final Cut, however, are the only versions that attempt an answer, and even then it's ambiguous at best.

 

 

I think this question is something that fans have to answer for themselves. There is alot of evidence out there, and where you come down on it is up to you I guess. I've stated my thoughts, but you're right that it's a different question in each of the different cuts

I've just ordered the five disc set of BR on HD DVD and will be watching the film for the first time in years. I am excited to dive back in and let these questions plague me all over again! (never seen the work print either)

We could all do worse than read Paul Sammon's excellent book about Bladerunner and it's making ("Future Noir").

It covers a lot of the subjects in this thread in great detail. The story behind the movie is remarkable, given what they had to go through, it's a miracle the movie got finished, let alone went on reach classic status eventually. 

IMHO the sequel should be titled DANGEROUS DAYS. IMHO DANGEROUS DAYS is a better title than BLADE RUNNER, and I am sorry that the original BLADE RUNNER is not titled DANGEROUS DAYS

I agree and hopefully Ridley does as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nexus-7 

Yep, same feelings as RD. Need more info, but I would be happy to see another film set in the same world, preferably (mostly)unrelated.

See: SOLDIER. Or not. I like it personally. But I also like a lot of trash.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Also, count me in as wanting to see Ridley tackle the fantasy genre again.  I don't want Legend 2, but I would love to see him play in a similar world in the near future.  A full-on sword & sorcery flick by Scott would be fantastic.

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN with orcs instead of Muslims?

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

I agree and hopefully Ridley does as well.

Howbout DO ANDROID SMART PHONES DREAM OF CLOUDS & SHEEP APPS?

Better not be RISE OF THE REPLICANTS.