I brought the news a short time ago that Ridley Scott is full steam ahead with Blade Runner 2: Still Runnin’. He’s working with Hampton Fancher, one of the original writers. One of the biggest questions thus far has been whether Harrison Ford would return in the sequel.
It’s movie history common knowledge that Ford HATED working on Blade Runner, and up until some time ago, he hated Ridley Scott. He didn’t have that good of a time being thrown around, and being in the rain so much, and who could blame him?
Now a UK paper has a quote from Sir Ridley where he talks about Ford and the sequel. Here’s the quote.
“I don’t think it’ll be Harry [starring]. But I’ve got to have him in it somewhere. That’d be amusing.
So it wouldn’t star Ford. That’s a forgone conclusion. Especially if you subscribe to the fact that Deckard is a Replicant, and I sure do*. It would make sense for Ford to have some kind of small cameo or flashbacks since the film is reportedly going to be several years in the future, and Sir Ridley has talked of having a female protagonist in the sequel.
The one thing that could possibly blow it apart is that last quote. Seems like a sly dig at Ford with the “That’d be amusing.” part. Ford is notoriously irritable, and it’s very unlikely he’d want to be referred to as “Amusing.” Tommy De Vito sure didn’t like that, and look what happened to Spider?
So what do you think? Should Ford be in the movie in some capacity? Should Sir Ridley just go ahead and start fresh? Should Sean Young start begging for a role? Sound off in the comments or on the message board.
Also sound off if you’d want to see M. Emmett Walsh, Joe Turkel, and James Hong back in some capacity.
I know I do.
Let’s just listen to this and continue to anticipate the sequel.
*In 2005, I took a science fiction in literature class in college, and one of the stories we read was Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? Then we saw Blade Runner, and one of the essays I had to write, was whether I believed Deckard was a Replicant or not. I spent several pages talking about how I believed him to be a Replicant due to his taking an above average amount of damage, the unicorn dream, and the chilling line: “It’s too bad she won’t live. But then again who does?” The fact that Deckard’s eyes glow red in his apartment, and all Replicants’ eyes glow red wasn’t lost on me either.
source: cinema blend
17 comments
I will voice my opinion on this after June 8th.
It sounds like he was joking. The British sense of humor is very dry.
I do not think he is a replicant, but instead something else. A replicant is to simple for him to be, he instead would have to be a new life form-post replicant. Why would a replicant kill other replicants for thinking they are human? Where is the logic in that? The only logical conclusion is that he is something else, not replicant and not human, who is designed specifically for this mission. The memories are there to make him think he is human and fully have him fall into that trap. Not so much with the other replicants- they have memories, but not a false sense of reality.
In my opinion, the “too bad she won’t live” line is actually one of the biggest indicators that Deckard is not a replicant. Beyond it’s coolness as a twist, it really doesn’t make any sense to the story. In fact, I’d say it directly undermines it. Deckard’s life isn’t really much of a life, is it? All he has to his name is his job and a crummy apartment. It’s Batty’s speech at the end that wakes him up, makes him realize he has been squandering his life. This replicant has seen so much in the short time he’s been alive, Olmos isn’t saying, “You’re a robot,” he’s saying, “It’s too bad these robots don’t get to live, but then again what person really does?” It’s just a robotic take on “Every man dies, but not every man truly lives.”
Plus, if he is a replicant, what was he? The basic sissy model? He gets tossed around by everyone.
Forgot to finish a though: Batty has seen so much in the short time he’s been alive — what has Deckard seen that can compare?
Everyone can argue any point except one, the unicorn. Deckard clearly has the dream of the unicorn while sleeping at the piano(which incidentally is covered with photographs, who else carries photos around?) and Olmos purposely leaves the origami unicorn for him to find. This clearly signifies that Olmos’s character knows Deckard’s memories. There is know other conclusion to draw, Deckard’s memories are false and implanted, therefor he is a replicant. I would love to hear how that can be refuted. And I don’t want to hear about coincidences please.
That is what I stated…
But, to play devil’s advocate-it could be situational irony
What?, no love for Edward James Olmos’ Gaff?!
I’m not saying the movie can’t be good, but by the visceral response to it, I think it’s lame that Ridley Scott has so much power to do whatever he wants. In a way I understand TOTAL RECALL, MINORITY REPORT and BLADE RUNNER all being tied-in sequels and spin-offs because the source material was written by the same person. So, I hope the rumors aren’t true that he’s going to be fusing his movie universes here. Logically, it probably does make about as much sense as merging THE MATRIX with TERMINATOR, but since BR and ALIEN are mostly related by director only, I can’t wait for him to integrate KINGDOM IN HEAVEN and MATCHSTICK MEN a la Terry Gilliam schizophrenia cut.
I think that not only is Deckard a replicant. He’s the 5th replicant, one of the 6 that busted out of the off world colony. That’s how Batty knows his name. That’s why Batty screams “Kinship!” to him when saving him. That’s why Tyrell is so interested in him – to see whether the memory implants can make him actually gun down his fellow revolutionaries.
No, “kinship” of sentient beings, not “kinship” as in “hey! Other Robot”.
I think cobane and Takeshi Kovac5 both hit the nail squarely on the head. The majority of the script is very strongly readable as questioning the assumption that the connective tissue between living things is organic biological provenance, and not consciousness. Equally, the unicorn dream and Gaff’s keepsake are clear indications that we are menat to take away that Deckard is very likely a replicant – possibly a model equivalent to Rachel rather than the combat team that Batty leads (his weakness, “more human than human”).
I find that tension/inconsistency maddening, and not in a good way. On a thematic level, the film can be read as very seriously flawed as a result. One saving throw could be that the point of the story (as represented in the Final Cut) was for Batty (having failed to get satisfaction from his maker) to help the Deckard replicant achieve enlightment as a “humane creature” whilst challenging the audience’s preconceptions with the fact that the character it primarily identified with on the journey was also, in fact a robot.
I still prefer the imaginary, CGI fixed, voiceover-less theatrical cut that runs in my head.
Scott has said, on record, that Deckard is a Replicant. So… so, um, why are people still debating this?
The “5th replicant” was a production fuck up, it was explained in the doc.
So, Tyrell invented the most advanced artificial man ever… for the purpose of putting him in a shitty apartment, eating noodles and doing a civil service job. I especially like Ford’s reaction to finding out all his memories are fake: ” welp, guess I’m a robot.”
Because its proof that Scott didn’t understand the very movie he was making…
Exactly. He was suggesting that these replicants did more with their short time than ANY of the rest of them were doing. They were fighting and dying to get to a shitty hellhole that people like Deckard took for granted. Plus Batty beats Deckard like a rag doll. This is why I prefer the theatrical cut. None of this deckard is a replicant bullshit is entertained there.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.