RIDLEY SCOTT WANTS TO FIT HARRISON FORD INTO BLADE RUNNER 2 - Page 2

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

Yes, a director can be full of shit.  Richard Kelly rejiggered Donnie Darko into a special edition that made little sense and betrayed the film...he didn't even understand his own movie.  He even admitted this.

 

William Freidkin destroyed The French Connection's original blu-ray release by color timing it into oblivion.  The grittiness was totally lost to this bizarre, art film like color palette that Freidkin insisted on to the objection of many others.  It was eventually fixed, but my point is made.

 

Spielberg regretted his E.T. 20th Anniversary special edition when he replaced the guns with walkie talkies and changed E.T.'s face in certain shots to a CGI mess.  The fall blu-ray 30th Anniversary release will only contain the 1982 film, at Spielberg's request.  He's disowned the special edition.  Same thing happened with his Close Encounters Special Edition, when he added scenes of Roy Neary inside the mothership...later he regretted doing that.

 

So when Scott says Deckard is a replicant, and his original cut contains no allusion to that, I think he's full of shit and has been thinking about his movie too long.

Actually, the original film does make allusions to it, you just have to pay attention more is all.  You bring up 3 examples of bad decisions on directors behalf, but there are hundreds of movies where studios have either tampered, interfered, or just plain took over the productions of a movie.  The list is long and sometimes we don't hear about it until years later or maybe never and that director is never heard from again.  These are the movies I am talking about and it isn't just a few indie films here or there, look up some stories about "John Carter" for something recent.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

Who decides that this is the only thing that matters? You?

The directors cut was released theatrically. If someone saw it first, does this rule apply to them?

 

Also, your other examples really aren't comparable. I like how you side-step the question about the movie being taken away from the director post-production in favor of referencing CGI guns in ET and a bad blu ray transfer. Not really the same thing in the slightest. 

I used those examples to show that a director can often sabotage his own movie because he overthinks it...I'm making the point that a director being an infallible expert on the film often isn't the case.  An appropriate quote from Terry Gilliam: "I'm not interested in people wanting to please the director...sometimes I'm the problem...I'm interested in what's best for the film."  If someone's first viewing of Blade Runner was the special edition, great, but I don't consider it canon when it comes to Deckard being a replicant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

I used those examples to show that a director can often sabotage his own movie because he overthinks it...I'm making the point that a director being an infallible expert on the film often isn't the case.  An appropriate quote from Terry Gilliam: "I'm not interested in people wanting to please the director...sometimes I'm the problem...I'm interested in what's best for the film."  If someone's first viewing of Blade Runner was the special edition, great, but I don't consider it canon when it comes to Deckard being a replicant.

Interesting that you quote Gilliam, given that using your stupid, stubborn equation, you prefer the terrible studio-tampered version of Brazil. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeshi Kovac5 

Actually, the original film does make allusions to it, you just have to pay attention more is all.  You bring up 3 examples of bad decisions on directors behalf, but there are hundreds of movies where studios have either tampered, interfered, or just plain took over the productions of a movie.  The list is long and sometimes we don't hear about it until years later or maybe never and that director is never heard from again.  These are the movies I am talking about and it isn't just a few indie films here or there, look up some stories about "John Carter" for something recent.

I said there were more than 3 examples.

And studios strong arming movies is par for the course, it comes with the territory...director's accept that, whether by choice or not, when they sign their agreement.  Filmmaking is a collaboration, and often, a director getting exactly everything he wants will destroy or at the very least damage a movie...the studio/producers/other collaborators are there to offer balance, and a much needed perspective on the film.   Most films don't deserve a special edition from the butt hurt director, who patched it together in his basement without anyone else's input, which is often what director's cuts are.  Michael Cimino's original director's cut for Heaven's Gate was like 5 fucking hours long...and he only thought it needed a few changes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

 

Yeah, I'm a fan of original films with original ideas. Like Blade Runner (even though it's based on a book, it's still original in its own right). I'm not a fan of cinema as product. Turning Blade Runner into a franchise does not interest me. Batman is based on a comic book, it's serialization is part of it's original form. Alien --- well, I don't know. It's pulpy sci-fi in a way that Blade Runner isn't. Blade Runner is a neo-noir, and the only other neo-noir I can think of that got a sequel was The Two Jakes. We all know how that turned out. 

 

This reminds me of that thread where people were pining for Tarantino to do something mainstream. Sometimes it seems like people can't be happy with what they have, they want everything to be The Avengers. 

Parker, I was just busting your balls there about being a fan of film.  I don't think there is any fear of Blade Runner becoming a franchise, Ridley is getting old, man.  And it is quite possible this film may not see the light of day, won't be the first time Ridley was hot about a project and it just never happened.  But, if it does, and it sucks, it doesn't mean that Blade Runner goes away.  It will still be the great film it always was and if anything it will bring new attention to the original film and all of it's neo-noir splendor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

 

Interesting that you quote Gilliam, given that using your stupid, stubborn equation, you prefer the terrible studio-tampered version of Brazil. 

Again, you're using exceptions to disprove a rule.   99% of films do not get the Brazil treatment.  

And you need to tone down the nastiness.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

Again, you're using exceptions to disprove a rule.   99% of films do not get the Brazil treatment.  

I'm using exceptions to disprove a rule, but you're allowed to use every movie that made a horrible revision to prove yours? Pretzel logic, friend.

Also, maybe 99% of movies didn't get the Brazil treatment. BUT BLADE RUNNER DID. And just because the director didn't remove his name, you say fuck it, it doesn't matter. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parker 

 

I'm using exceptions to disprove a rule, but you're allowed to use every movie that made a horrible revision to prove yours? Pretzel logic, friend.

Also, maybe 99% of movies didn't get the Brazil treatment. BUT BLADE RUNNER DID. And just because the director didn't remove his name, you say fuck it, it doesn't matter. 

It doesn't matter to me, like what I've been saying all along.  You don't agree, fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

I said there were more than 3 examples.

 

And studios strong arming movies is par for the course, it comes with the territory...director's accept that, whether by choice or not, when they sign their agreement.  Filmmaking is a collaboration, and often, a director getting exactly everything he wants will destroy or at the very least damage a movie...the studio/producers/other collaborators are there to offer balance, and a much needed perspective on the film.   Most films don't deserve a special edition from the butt hurt director, who patched it together in his basement without anyone else's input, which is often what director's cuts are.  Michael Cimino's original director's cut for Heaven's Gate was like 5 fucking hours long...and he only thought it needed a few changes.

I think you have a skewed view of what directors are hired to do.  They are hired and paid to create a movie with their vision and purpose, that is why it is called directing.  Studios finance a movie, producers....produce.  It is not rocket science here.  When a studio exec. moves into the directors chair or the editors chair, there is going to be major fuck ups on the way.  Just look at one time Exec. Prod. John Peters and his giant spiders idea, they have no business outside their role of expertise, and when they do, the films almost always fail miserably.  So, true, films are a collaboration of many people as long as they stick to their fucking jobs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeshi Kovac5 

I think you have a skewed view of what directors are hired to do.  They are hired and paid to create a movie with their vision and purpose, that is why it is called directing.  Studios finance a movie, producers....produce.  It is not rocket science here.  When a studio exec. moves into the directors chair or the editors chair, there is going to be major fuck ups on the way.  Just look at one time Exec. Prod. John Peters and his giant spiders idea, they have no business outside their role of expertise, and when they do, the films almost always fail miserably.  So, true, films are a collaboration of many people as long as they stick to their fucking jobs.

We're getting murky here.  I know what directors do and I never implied others should be trying to direct the movie.  I always said filmmaking is collaboration.  But director's cuts of films are usually a version of the film that the director puts together without (much) input from others, and they tend to be bloated, lacking focus and self indulgent... worse off than the theatrical cut, which is usually put together with plenty of input from the producer, editor and studio and at the end of the day, is the only version that is released in theaters 99% of the time and works for me as a general rule for deciding canon.  I used a few examples of directors nearly (or definitely) destroying their films with director's cuts to show that their judgement can be incredibly suspect...hence my thinking Scott is full of shit with his Deckard/replicant comment.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ambler 

 

We're getting murky here.  I know what directors do and I never implied others should be trying to direct the movie.  I always said filmmaking is collaboration.  But director's cuts of films are usually a version of the film that the director puts together without (much) input from others, and they tend to be bloated, lacking focus and self indulgent... worse off than the theatrical cut, which is usually put together with plenty of input from the producer, editor and studio and at the end of the day, is the only version that is released in theaters 99% of the time and works for me as a general rule for deciding canon.  I used a few examples of directors nearly (or definitely) destroying their films with director's cuts to show that their judgement can be incredibly suspect...hence my thinking Scott is full of shit with his Deckard/replicant comment.

We can agree to disagree, and I am perfectly ok with that.  I would however ask that you try an experiment and watch the movies backwards in chronology and see if your interpretation changes.  What I mean is start with the Final cut and work towards the original and see if you still think Ridley is trying to pull a fast one on the Deckard/replicant idea.

Edit: Oh, and I will agree mostly with the Donnie Darko director's cut, it is a mess, but I did learn a few cool inside ideas about the original that I thought were very cool.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Takeshi Kovac5 

I would however ask that you try an experiment and watch the movies backwards in chronology and see if your interpretation changes.  What I mean is start with the Final cut and work towards the original and see if you still think Ridley is trying to pull a fast one on the Deckard/replicant idea.

Interesting idea, but I'm not fond enough of Blade Runner or invested enough in the Deckard/Replicant thing to bother doing that.

Tell you what Riddles, you crazy, sequelizing your greatest films in old age thing you: Let me see Prometheus first, and then I'll decide whether this 'Harrison Ford in Blade Runner 2' thing has my interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Workyticket 

Tell you what Riddles, you crazy, sequelizing your greatest films in old age thing you: Let me see Prometheus first, and then I'll decide whether this 'Harrison Ford in Blade Runner 2' thing has my interest.

Exceedingly rational thinking. 

Regardless of the replicant debate, I'd be really surprised if Ridley was serious about working with Harrison again. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by brandhay 

 

Exceedingly rational thinking. 

 

Regardless of the replicant debate, I'd be really surprised if Ridley was serious about working with Harrison again. 

I'd be even more shocked if Ford took him up on it.

I get the feeling Sir Rids was doing what we like to call here in Australia "taking the piss".

Fuck having Ford in this if it actually goes through and gets made. I honestly don't want his face anywhere near it, just give me a line or two to keep up the ambiguity of the original and I'm fine with that.

On the trail of the thread..as soon as I saw the headline I knew I would be walking into the is he or isn't he? discussion.

Personally. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? = Human Deckard. Blade Runner = Replicant Deckard. That's just my feeling on the matter so who cares?

And I go with the Final Cut for the film, which is again, just, like, my opinion, man.

Ridley is taking the piss. If you are British, you will understand his dry humour. 

 I can't believe you guys are getting so angry over this.

 Oh, and I'm sick of the word 'canon'. That word almost always means fanboys have made the decision amongst themselves. The recent decision that the AVP movies are 'canon' proves my point.

 Ridley himself says on Empire's new short interview that he doesn't give a shit about his legacy or staying 'true' to what has come before. He just wants to tell a good new story. He's a storyteller and is baffled by the microscopic dissection of the PROMETHEUS stuff. I have to agree. People will hate it when it comes out as they have worked themselves into a froth over the million fantastical ideas that people are coming up with.

Apart from some of the one's mentioned above, KINGDOM OF HEAVEN just a totally different movie in the 'directors cut'. An amazing film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheGhost 

Fuck having Ford in this if it actually goes through and gets made. I honestly don't want his face anywhere near it, just give me a line or two to keep up the ambiguity of the original and I'm fine with that.

 

On the trail of the thread..as soon as I saw the headline I knew I would be walking into the is he or isn't he? discussion.

 

Personally. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? = Human Deckard. Blade Runner = Replicant Deckard. That's just my feeling on the matter so who cares?

 

And I go with the Final Cut for the film, which is again, just, like, my opinion, man.

The Ghost Abides...

EDIT -

Damn: I got my blood up and ranted - then The Ghost came in and made everything all nice and reasonable again. Ah well. (tips hat - fucks off)

If the Author is dead, I say kill the Fans too because in most cases they're just as shit.

But "Death of the Author" is one of those arguments that people pick up and drop to suit their own bullshit. See Mass Effect 3 for the most recent version of that. It's a valid point of argument that the author may have created something "greater than the sum of it's parts" and he's now pretty much on-par with the audience that embraced it as this "unintended" thing. Donnie Darko worked because it could be so many things to so many different people (within a generational spectrum of course - it's the ultimate "Ritalin/Anti-Depressant" Generation movie). It turns out that nobody was really interested in Kelly's "intended" movie.

In Bladerunner's case, IT WAS A BOMB. Nobody was satisfied with the theatrical cut (it had a terrible rating in all the Guides of the day - Halliwell etc hated the shit out of it and every TV guide listing reflected this). Bladerunner's current "Classic" status/reputation is based purely on it's evolving reputation among geeks/buffs as a movie that contained greater depth than initially thought (the key element was Deckard possibly being a replicant), and when it came to light that there was indeed this alternate cut that confirmed what many of it's supporters had suspected it was like a lightning strike. It was no longer a "cult" movie but a full fledged classic. And it would NOT be that if it had remained un-touched as Ambler is asserting. This is a legitimate case of the director's vision  being A: Interfered with and B: Superior (and it was Scott's vision, not the writers' etc - it's a classic "lightning in a Bottle" case of converging talents though, with Ridley steering the ship before the producers took over and ran it into the rocks), rather than a case (similar to The Thing) where only the timing wasn't right.

But basically, THERE ARE NO RULES. "Rules" in filmmaking are only ever guidelines. Changing one line of dialogue can fix (or fuck) a movie in one case, while changing entire scenes/reshooting/cutting half the movie can't fix another.

I'd add that this Bladerunner "re-birth" came about in a time when the Art House scene was on the rise and movies from the 80s were being revisited and a reasonable (ie: financially viable) portion of the movie-going audience were more open/receptive to the general themes at play in Bladerunner beyond the is he/isn't he question: that was the "hook" for revisiting it, but it's also the key to opening up the correct mindset in which to re-watch the movie with new eyes. So I don't think that the is he/isn't he question is what's important so much as that you understand why the movie wants you to think about it. It's essential to the correct viewing of the movie - it just so happens that this is also the "Author's Vision" of the movie.

Personally I have some dark suspicions about the continuing contrarianism of people wanting a return to the "Bomb Cut" of Bladerunner. And I suspect it's a thread of logic that ends with the title "BLADERUNNERS". Where an Aliens-esque re-visioning would be more welcome than Ridley returning to it with the eye of an artist: Replicants as Terminators - Arnie as a Replicant!!! (I HAVE heard that last one IRL BTW - fans back then were just as fuck stupid as they are now).

Quote Ambler:

"Interesting idea, but I'm not fond enough of Blade Runner or invested enough in the Deckard/Replicant thing to bother doing that."

Hmmmm....

Is it wrong for me to hope Ridley croaks before he has a chance to make this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nardo 

It was no longer a "cult" movie but a full fledged classic. And it would NOT be that if it had remained un-touched as Ambler is asserting. 

That's not what I was asserting at all, but thanks for paying attention.

I never said Blade Runner should have remained untouched.  I never said the director's cut is a bad movie.  I never said the theatrical version is better.

My entire point was many directors not knowing their movie as much as they think they do, relating to Scott's Deckard = replicant claim.  It was a simple point that got blown out of proportion by defensive posters.

I think we're losing sight of something fairly important here.

If it happens at all, by the time this film gets released it will be only a couple of years or so shy of the setting in the original movie. The way things are going, downtown Los Angeles isn't going to have nearly enough flying cars or oil refineries by then. (Never mind pyramidal Arcologies and Off-World colonies).  We really need to do something about this.

Christ, you're such a fucking idiot, Ambler. And people wonder why no one comes to CHUD anymore. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leonard 

Christ, you're such a fucking idiot, Ambler. And people wonder why no one comes to CHUD anymore. 

An ironic statement if I ever saw one.

Ridley Scott showed me a work print of Blade Runner on a sheet in his garage, which I consider to be the definitive version of the film.