Movie News

Steven Lisberger Re: The TRON Films, And Much More!! + A Reference To A Scott Brothers BLADE RUNNER Project!?

Published at: March 26, 2010, 3:32 p.m. CST

Merrick here...
Henry Jenkins has a lengthy (and quite fascinating) video discussion with TRON's Steven Lisberger about many things TRON, and beyond. I've yet to watch the entire interview at the time of this posting. But what I've seen so far? Very cool. Lisberger talks about why TRON has come full circle, the struggles of considering/creating the physics of TRON, struggles to get people to understand TRON in the early days, larger issues of techno-culture, the impact of 3D and AVATAR, and much more. There's an eye opening moment in this interview: at 4:22 in Part 1 of their talk, Jenkins makes reference to Ridley and Tony Scott "returning to BLADE RUNNER". Lisberger does not dispute this assertion- having just hung out with Ridley at Jeff Bridges' house (how cool would that pow-wow have been!?) I'm assuming this is a mutual brain fart & they're actually referring to the ALIEN project that's already been announced, but that BLADE RUNNER mention is...very specific...and conspicuous.

WATCH THE WHOLE THING HERE!!!


It's a very compelling and enlightening discussion that is certain to get your Geek on. Sit back with a snack and check it out!
--- Follow Merrick on Twitter! ---

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 26, 2010, 10:57 a.m. CST

    Cool beans...

    by Bodacious_Crumb

    I'd prefer a return trip to Blade Runner over Alien anyday.

  • March 26, 2010, 10:59 a.m. CST

    BLADERUNNER REBOOT!!

    by PeanutButterSlut

    YES!

  • March 26, 2010, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Not Sure How I Feel About Another Blade Runner

    by Dave I

    A Continuation could be cool, but I doubt we'd be THAT lucky (for it to both happen AND be cool).<p><p>-Cheers

  • March 26, 2010, 11 a.m. CST

    DJ QUALLS FOR HARRISON FORD!

    by PeanutButterSlut

    Hauer can be played by Danny Glover

  • March 26, 2010, 11:01 a.m. CST

    Bladerunner need more action/better fx, u know it

    by PeanutButterSlut

    A reeboot may finally give us the "spectacle" missing from the first. Plus have Eddie come back and you have a BSG tie in with the new BSG movie. Cheers! !

  • March 26, 2010, 11:07 a.m. CST

    "Attackships on fire off the shore of Orion"

    by PeanutButterSlut

    Already primed for some 'BSG' type action, just film that flashback, so we SEE IT INSTEAD of it being a verbal thing. <p> Hauer: You should have seen them, the ships.... *enters flashback* <p> Young Adama flys into the the fray, looking out his cockpit at orion as ships are on fire, then Hauer comes in his raider for a dogfight showdown, which is why at the end he leaves that origami Unicorn for solo, to inspire him to build the Millenium Falcon.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:08 a.m. CST

    He say you Brade Runna.

    by Squashua

    Best line ever.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:09 a.m. CST

    I am HYPED now

    by PeanutButterSlut

    Bring on the CGI bladerunning.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:10 a.m. CST

    I'm game

    by The_Crimson_King

    I've always thought Scott should make a sequel to Blade Runner

  • March 26, 2010, 11:10 a.m. CST

    I Get So Tired of the Filter Here at Work . . .

    by kevinwillis.net

    No YouTube. I can almost never see any of the videos anybody posts.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Took 25 years just to get the definitive Blade Runner

    by V'Shael

    Now they want to remake it? Fuck off.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:11 a.m. CST

    of course I wonder

    by The_Crimson_King

    how they would tackle the fact that Blade Runner is set less than a decade from now

  • March 26, 2010, 11:11 a.m. CST

    (how cool would that pow-wow have been!?)

    by solanine

    I'd imagine that, due to said pow-wow, there's a lot less pot in the world now.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:11 a.m. CST

    speaking of which though, where are...

    by The_Crimson_King

    my GIANT ASIAN WOMEN ON GIANT TV SCREENS?

  • March 26, 2010, 11:12 a.m. CST

    Can you Imagine

    by PeanutButterSlut

    Adama and Solo in the Falcon and an Old School First Cylon War era viper taking on a fleet of ANdroids from Bladerunner in Starwars-Cylon hybrid X-Wings? That would buttfuck the hell outta your childhood!

  • March 26, 2010, 11:14 a.m. CST

    Blade Runner 2 3D FUCKING YOUR EYEBALLS

    by umbral_shadow_

    You know it makes sense.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:14 a.m. CST

    Kevin Willis

    by PeanutButterSlut

    Since you have a job how about WORK instead of youtubing, huh? Or are you paid to be an intraweb-douche? I thought you worked for your website anyways????

  • March 26, 2010, 11:15 a.m. CST

    Blade Runner 2 3D =

    by The_Crimson_King

    GIANT ASIAN WOMEN IN 3D

  • March 26, 2010, 11:16 a.m. CST

    I just want Ridley doing Sci-Fi again . . .

    by Nice Marmot

    . . . doesn't have to be Blade Runner related. Seriously, how old is this guy now?

  • March 26, 2010, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Bladerunner was not about the background people...

    by theDannerDaliel

  • March 26, 2010, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Seriously doubt its BR2 or a remake.

    by Sulla

    More than likely it's another "sidequel" like Soldier, or even a prequel.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:24 a.m. CST

    BLADE RUNNER 2: REPLICANT BOOGALOO

    by LaserPants

    Pris is back from the grave... and she's gonna use her breakdancing skills to save the Rec Center!

  • March 26, 2010, 11:34 a.m. CST

    not a remake or sequel/prequel

    by Bouncy X

    its yet another "director's cut" and this time it'll come in a replica of harrison ford's personality since he doesn't need it anymore.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:35 a.m. CST

    No no no no no no! NO!

    by JMH1973

    Any studio that would greenlight a sequel to Blade Runner has not done their homework. The original was pretty much a flop when first released. It took YEARS for it to finally get into the black. It is a very popular cult movie but it's still a cult movie (dedicated but limited audience). The themes and darkness of that movie don't generate mass audience turnouts. Besides, make something new already, something that is as original as the flicks that are being remade now. In 25 years, I don't want to have to read about a remake of the remakes I'm having to sit through now.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:36 a.m. CST

    TRONS VS. REPLICANTS!!!

    by LaserPants

    GET ON THE GAMEGRID, SKINJOB!!!

  • March 26, 2010, 11:39 a.m. CST

    Blade Walker more like

    by I_am_Torgo

    ...Harrison Ford is ancient

  • March 26, 2010, 11:40 a.m. CST

    JMH1973 -- TRON Was Also A Flop

    by LaserPants

    I don't think BR needs (or should have) a sequel either, but, if that's the logic, it doesn't hold.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Don't know whether to be stoked for it or not.

    by Hint_of_Smegma

    On one hand, hints of a Blade Runner sequel. On the other hand, hints of a Blade Runner sequel nearly 30 years on by a director who's recent work hasn't been a patch on his 70's and early eighties work. Could be amazing, it could be. I hope so if it's more than just a pipedream. Just not sure it won't get screwed up though, and screwed up badly. If he gives us a good Alien prequel, I'll be more enthused about this.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Attackships On Fire Was An Awesome RevCo Song Too

    by LaserPants

  • March 26, 2010, 11:41 a.m. CST

    But... HEY, Wait A Minute! There's No Fire In Space!

    by LaserPants

    NO OXYGEN = NO FIRE!!! WTF?!?!?! AIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!

  • March 26, 2010, 11:43 a.m. CST

    By the Way,

    by Aquatarkusman

    There is about 40 minutes of good discussion at the linked post about the past, present and future of CG.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Man, I'd love to see another...

    by newkie brown

    ...film set in the Blade Runner universe. There are very few directors working in science fiction that bring that level of sophistication to the table. <p> I seem to remember that the Scott brothers were going to create a series of 5-10 minute 'prequel' shorts, entitled 'Purefold', set in the same universe.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Plus...His name is Ridley

    by LegendaryPinkDot

    The king Alien from Metroid!! You do not get more Sci-Fi than that

  • March 26, 2010, 11:47 a.m. CST

    JMH1973 "original was a flop"

    by umbral_shadow_

    Who gives a shit about "mass audience turnouts"? (unless you are a studio suit). Just give me a super cool, complex BR sequel/prequel in that incredible environment. I don't care if it makes bank. Avatar made fortunes and was a pile of snail vomit.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Please God no!

    by DoctorWho?

    Don't tarnish or dilute Blade Runner with some spin off or sequel. The fact that they're even chatting about possibilities sickens me.<p> I admit it...my love for that film is boderline obsessive. To the point of even being weird. Star Wars prequels? Ha...Go for it! Let's see what happens. Hell, remake Gone With The Wind but please don't even market research a Blade Runner spin off idea. <p> This is bigger than you Ridley. Don't even fuck with it. <p> Besides....no Jordan Cronenweth.<p> End of story.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:53 a.m. CST

    Even the name was a rip-off

    by SmokingRobot

    'Blade Runner' has absolutely nothing to do with anything. They paid author Alan E. Nourse to use it (it was the title of a sci-fi book about someone who smuggled medical supplies). The movie looked great and sucked pretty damn hard. You don't notice the horrendous pacing problems the 10th time you've seen it. The voice-over was a catastrophe, but the studio thought it was needed otherwise you lost interest because it was so BO-RING. Most over-rated film ever. The trailer that used 'If I didn't Care' was the best thing about this movie.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:56 a.m. CST

    You know you want it. Shia Lebouef (sp??)

    by thedude2010

    As young Deckard (do replicants age?) in a prequel.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:59 a.m. CST

    For gods sake learn how to film these things!

    by J.B.M.A.

    Great that such an interview was possible, but why the fuck do I have to put up with the most APPALLING sound quality and camerawork. They could find ANYONE better? C'mon: the dude is supposed to be a movie freak...

  • March 26, 2010, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Actually, I Believe the Title Came From WIlliam Burroughs

    by LaserPants

    He wrote a novella called Blade Runner that had nothing to do with Replicants... or so I recall. Btw, not for nothing, Blade Runner is WAY better than it's source material "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep."

  • March 26, 2010, noon CST

    Remake / Reboot Bladerunner?!?!

    by koie

    Ok the orig. was bad. But the director's cut is a cinematic masterpiece. A sequel to that movie makes about as much sense as a sequel to Saving Private Ryan. Shouldn't happen. And as far s remake?!?! What planet are they living on? Thats ludicres, thats about as sensible as remaking Psycho... oh wait... :-P

  • March 26, 2010, 12:04 p.m. CST

    PeanutButterSlut

    by Naboo_the_Enigma

    Although I'd also love to see the attackships on fire too, I also think that our imaginations of how great that would look is even better. I don't think that seeing someone else's vision of that could come close to our own imagination. I guess that's why people still read novels. =)

  • March 26, 2010, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Moon Sequel

    by REDD

    Duncan Jones had said that his next project may be a follow up to Moon..set in a Blade Runneresque world..it would involve the real Sam encountering the Sam clone that escaped at the end of Moon.

  • March 26, 2010, 12:05 p.m. CST

    What They SHOULD Make Is A BLADE RUNNER Videogame

    by LaserPants

    Some kinda super jacked-up nextgen game with the GTA engine (free roaming, open ended) featuring flying cars and what not. Go full otaku with it too and really bring the world from the movie to life. Something like they did with The Warriors, but WAY more awesome. Btw, they should also do the same thing with Tron.

  • March 26, 2010, 12:05 p.m. CST

    What They SHOULD DO Is A BLADE RUNNER Videogame

    by LaserPants

  • March 26, 2010, 12:06 p.m. CST

    Sorry

    by LaserPants

    I don't know why I reposted that tagline... must be I'm approaching retirement (as in Replicant retirement).

  • March 26, 2010, 12:07 p.m. CST

    JON HAMM IS SUPERMAN, BLADE RUNNER VideoGame

    by LaserPants

    These two things should happen soonish.

  • March 26, 2010, 12:09 p.m. CST

    PeanutButterSlut

    by BanAllFIRSTPosters

    You're becoming a real pain in the ass on this site.

  • March 26, 2010, 12:11 p.m. CST

    I think it'd be a good idea, personally....

    by Kefrif

    There’s many options you could explore with a Blade Runner sequel. You have the sequel books that have some good ideas in them. One was set in the middle of a blazing summer – that’d be an awesome thing to see in this universe. You wouldn’t necessarily have to use Ford, but if you did, you could have an ageing Deckard considering his own retirement and thematically use the concept of “retirement” in the film. Set it in, say, 2050, and make it about an organised resistance movement formed of Nexus series replicants? Turn it into a political thriller like The Parallax View and have infiltrating Replicants about to kill world leaders – Deckard being the only Blade Runner left who can end them. Just a thought. One thing that would be DAMN tricky to put together would be the same atmosphere, and the intangible cult-making elements that were in place in the original Blade Runner. That would be a deal breaker if they screwed it up…

  • March 26, 2010, 12:11 p.m. CST

    PBS is okay in my book....

    by Bodacious_Crumb

    He just needs to dial it down a little.

  • March 26, 2010, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Logans Run

    by REDD

    Wasn't there talk of a Logans Run remake? I like to see Ridley do that..or maybe David Fincher.

  • March 26, 2010, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner in 3D

    by tomimt

    That's what it will be.

  • March 26, 2010, 12:15 p.m. CST

    REDD

    by Bodacious_Crumb

    Sadly, Bryan Singer has had Logans Run on the backburner.

  • March 26, 2010, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner is a masterpiece...

    by jimmy rabbitte

    I have to laugh at that film school wanna be PeanutButterSlut explaining how Ridley Scott got it all wrong.<p> "There weren't enough 'splosies'!"<p> "Let's do a shitty, half-assed tie-in with a piece of shit TV show that owes every idea it ever explored to 'Blade Runner' right down to the use of the term 'skin job'.<p> And spectacle missing from the original??? Blade Runner is one of the most well shot films ever made. If you can't admire that camera work, then just stick to Mikey Bay and Paul W.S. Anderson movies, because there is obviously no hope for you.

  • March 26, 2010, 12:27 p.m. CST

    Fascinating chat anyway

    by J.B.M.A.

    Depressing that the most everyone seems to have got out of it is a brief reference to Bladerunner...

  • March 26, 2010, 12:32 p.m. CST

    JON MAN is SUPERHAM ALIENBLADE VideoGame

    by gotilk

  • March 26, 2010, 12:36 p.m. CST

    EmagoediV EDALBNEILA MAHREPUS si NAM NOJ

    by LaserPants

  • March 26, 2010, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Just saw the Interviews with Lisberger

    by D o o d

    and I hope that Tron Legacy is a success for him just as much as it is for us to see. He seems like a really intelligent, Humble and most of all, a decent guy!

  • March 26, 2010, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Fuck no.

    by Amazing Maurice

    Leave Blade Runner alone. Those shit novel sequels were bad enough.

  • March 26, 2010, 12:55 p.m. CST

    SOLDIER was set in the Bladerunner universe

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    Who directed it? I dare you to find out.

  • March 26, 2010, 1:03 p.m. CST

    Bodacious_Crumb...

    by REDD

    Ah thanks...too bad. Soldier was directed by Paul Anderson...best part of the movie was the wrecked Spinner in the background in one scene.

  • March 26, 2010, 1:04 p.m. CST

    Hey Ridley, have Harrison Ford RIDE a unicorn!

    by Royston Lodge

    Coming in 2012: BLADE LEGEND<p> or<p> Coming in 2012: LEGEND RUNNER<p> I'd usually charge big money for an idea of this level of awesome, but you can have this one for free.

  • March 26, 2010, 1:05 p.m. CST

    what other films take place in the BR universe?

    by harper54

    and yes I'm aware that my accumulated nerd force power level goes down 14 points for not knowing but I recently purchased a t-shirt with TWO wolves on it and the chicks have really taken an interest.

  • March 26, 2010, 1:05 p.m. CST

    Paul W.S. Anderson did Soldier. Kurt Russell's agent shit the b

    by BanditDarville

    Imagine what L.A. and the rest of America will look like in 2019. Three years after the second Obama term, we'll be expanding health care coverage for Replicants by then.

  • March 26, 2010, 1:09 p.m. CST

    So much hate on this site, and then a bunch of...

    by Jaka

    ...happiness about a possible Blade Runner reboot?!?! Fuck that! lol Don't do ANYTHING to change the original, or even anything relating to the original. Just go back to that world and tell a different story. Leave Blade Runner alone Ridley, or we'll have to change your last name to Lucas.

  • March 26, 2010, 1:14 p.m. CST

    A Blade Runner Prequel!

    by StarskyandHushky

    with focus on the Roy Batty origin story, like how he was the child of a poor slave woman, trapped on a dessert planet, but turns out to be a talented racer. Also, it should have this talking rabbit in it that steps in the poopie.

  • March 26, 2010, 1:16 p.m. CST

    BRING SYD MEAD BACK

    by BranMakMorn

    Don't forget his concept work, his vision helped root that film to a specific retro future design.

  • March 26, 2010, 1:24 p.m. CST

    I'd pay $10 to see Boy Batty trapped on a dessert planet.

    by Royston Lodge

    That would make the Candy Land movie almost worthwhile!

  • March 26, 2010, 1:31 p.m. CST

    starsky "trapped on a dessert planet"

    by umbral_shadow_

    Man, I would LOVE to be trapped on a dessert planet! I would double in weight in no time!

  • March 26, 2010, 1:40 p.m. CST

    The Replicant Menace?

    by REDD

    I'm a person and my name is Roy!

  • March 26, 2010, 1:42 p.m. CST

    DON'T TOUCH "BLADE RUNNER!!!"

    by The Dark Nolan

    It's perfect where it is you fucking morons!!!

  • March 26, 2010, 1:44 p.m. CST

    No comments on the actual interview...

    by jiblets

    You look at the level of discourse going on in the video interviews and then come back here, and it's like going from a free-ranging university class discussion to watching chimpanzees screaming and flinging their own shit at each other. Try to behave like you belong to this species for a change.

  • March 26, 2010, 1:44 p.m. CST

    Mehhhhh...I don't know....

    by Darth Macchio

    Blade Runner IS lightening in a bottle. Obviously it is sacrilege to have anybody but Wiggley (Ridley) Scott et al to get near it but I doubt Scott could repeat the same genius considering that these things are simply unrepeatable. Call it chaos theory, call it changing times and attitudes but I'd be willing to be that any remake of BR would suck even if it was the EXACT same crew that did the first one sans actors.<p>Now, a continuation or alternate story in the same universe? That could be something else entirely. The story of the replicants themselves as a prequel? ("I've seen things you people wouldn't believe!") That would be doubly kewl but I still feel and insist that the line to walk is SOOOO fine here that even the brilliant talent involved in the original might not be capable of capturing that same lightening a second time.

  • March 26, 2010, 1:57 p.m. CST

    jimmy rabbitte: Add SmokingRobot to that list...

    by DoctorWho?

    ...of film illiterates who can't separate something they don't like with the fact that it is quality.<p> Calling Blade Runner 'boring' says more about some short-attention spanned doofus' inability to sit still than the movie itself. <p> Today, most 'kids' heads would explode if they had to watch a film from the early 20th century driven primarily by dialogue and character. <p> There are many films I don't care for which I still recognize as the seminal films they are.<p>

  • March 26, 2010, 2:15 p.m. CST

    STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM BLADE RUNNER!!!

    by theycallmemrtibbs

  • March 26, 2010, 2:16 p.m. CST

    STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM BLADE RUNNER!!!

    by theycallmemrtibbs

  • March 26, 2010, 2:16 p.m. CST

    STAY THE FUCK AWAY FROM BLADE RUNNER!!!

    by theycallmemrtibbs

  • March 26, 2010, 2:25 p.m. CST

    I think Ridley says on the BluRay that...

    by CharyouTree

    ..He's got ideas of how to revist the Bladerunner world, and wont rule out a sequal of sorts, I'm sure of it,<p> and has anyone here read the Bladerunner sequals books, they follow on from the movie if I recall, they were flawed but had some decent ideas, like Deckard having Roy Battys "brain/personality" in a suitcase computer, and having Batty as a partner on a case. And something about the Replicants on the distant worlds starting to procreate, because the laws of robotics don't seem to apply the further away from Earth, or something like that.

  • March 26, 2010, 2:29 p.m. CST

    There is a Blade Runner video game.

    by cyberskunk

    Although I've never played it. Clips are on youtube. Here's a clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V9-hTaFqh_Q

  • March 26, 2010, 2:35 p.m. CST

    Laserpants

    by TheNewDirector

    There was a blade runner game released on the pc years ago, same company that made command and conquer I believe

  • March 26, 2010, 2:37 p.m. CST

    yep i own it and it is one of the best

    by ominus

    adventure games i have ever played and very,very faithful to the Blade Runner movie since it was a non-canon sequel to it.

  • March 26, 2010, 2:43 p.m. CST

    ominus

    by TheNewDirector

    I've always wanted to play it, never got around to it though, but from what I remember from the reviews at the time, it was very well made and the stylistic choices were very faithful to the movie.

  • March 26, 2010, 2:46 p.m. CST

    and yeah i wouldnt mind a new Blade Runner

    by ominus

    <p>movie.in fact i dont understand why Riddley hasnt made one yet,since he has no problem to revisit his Alien movie. <p>BR has a big fanbase,and with the current CGI technology imagine what Ridley can achieve.And its not that he has to follow the story of the first movie.BR is a whole universe,he can tell a different story in this universe. <p>Tron,which also was a flop in its time of release,got its new movie why not BR?

  • March 26, 2010, 2:49 p.m. CST

    The Blade Runner PC game

    by SpawnofAchilles

    Was fucking awesome!! I wish I still had it. The game dripped atmosphere just like the movie.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:03 p.m. CST

    Original BR > Director's Cut

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Deckard as replicant sucks.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:03 p.m. CST

    oh wait the videogame's story was parallel

    by ominus

    with the movie's story and they did a great job incorporating events from the movie into the game.For instance remember in the movie when Leon says that he couldnt go to his hotel room to get his beloved photos? <p>well at some point in the game,you (in the game you play another blade runner who is colleague to Deckard) visit Leon's hotel room where you discover his photos. <p>damn they dont make games like that anymore :(

  • March 26, 2010, 3:08 p.m. CST

    "Deckard as replicant sucks"

    by Kaitain

    You're not compelled to accept that point of view by the director's cut. It's just one hypothesis. I don't find it very plausible either. I know Ridley is certain it's true, but he is not the Lord of Blade Runner...it's the creation of multiple people, and ambiguity is built into its very fabric. <p> Oh, btw...SmokingRobot, I disagree with everything you wrote.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:10 p.m. CST

    i agree with Thunderbolt

    by ominus

    deckard as a replicant destroys the whole movie in a multiple levels.ie the final scene where the robot saves the life of the human does not have the same gravitas and dramatic impact if it turns out into a scene where a robot saves the life of another robot who thinks its human.see there? that thing hurts the logic,philosophy,the whole drama of the movie. <p> I repsect Riddley's vision and i am glad that as an artist he eventually got it fully realized,but being a fan of his movie with a personal opinion,i thinke he really shouldnt make Deckard a replicant.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:13 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner is the best

    by CartoonFanboy

    Anyone here who thinks this movie is a) overrated, b) visually dated, or c) in need of a reboot, should buy themselves a stove pipe hat, take a big dump in it and wear it for the next 3 weeks. Why? Because you're a shit head. Blade Runner is one of the best films ever made, and I'm not just talking Sci-fi.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:13 p.m. CST

    btw another good thing with the videogame

    by ominus

    was that it had multiple endings.In one ending you were human,in another ending you discover that you are replicant and in the fact the 5th missing member from Batty's team !!,and so on.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Deckard as replicant is strongly suggested

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    and conspicuously suggested, as there is added material to make the suggestion. Scott on that making of doc presents the idea as if it's very clever when, in fact, it's not.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:15 p.m. CST

    BR does not a reboot,but a sequel or a rather

    by ominus

    an expansion and exploring of its universe would have been great.BTW Soldier with Russel was supposed to be a non-officall spin-off from BR,there is even a connection between the 2 movies.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:16 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner is....

    by Lacloake

    .... without a doubt the Greatest Movie of All Time. No Contest. And the PC game was great too; still have it somewhere but one of the discs got scratched too badly to play.... (sob)...<p>Saying all that I really don't want to see a revisit or a reboot, there's no need to set another movie in the same universe; not only wouldn't it live up to what Blade Runner is as a movie great but it may actually damage the legacy of it...

  • March 26, 2010, 3:16 p.m. CST

    yeah the Unicron dream sequence

    by ominus

    and the origami that Adama puts in the door of Deckard's appartment at the end of the movie.yep.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Damn i hope Cameron puts the Earth scene

    by ominus

    in the extended bluray version.I have seen the concept art and that scene must be amazing.At least its the only glimpse we can get of what a new BR could look today.come on Cameron bring it.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:28 p.m. CST

    Scott

    by Kaitain

    "hints of a Blade Runner sequel nearly 30 years on by a director who's recent work hasn't been a patch on his 70's and early eighties work" <p> So very true. Alien and Blade Runner are incredible pieces of work. But BR was, in all honestly, the last really good thing he did.

  • March 26, 2010, 3:31 p.m. CST

    "I want more life...fucker"

    by umbral_shadow_

    One of the best lines of any film ever. I HATED when they changed it to "father" in the Final Cut. Ridley was messin' with perfection too much...

  • March 26, 2010, 3:45 p.m. CST

    DONT.BRING.BACK.FORD.

    by idrinkyourmilkshake

    He is too goddamn old.Unless he plays himself as an old bastard for maybe 2-3 scenes.And for CHRIST SAKE'S, don't give him a glistening chest!

  • March 26, 2010, 3:47 p.m. CST

    umbral_shadow_ "I want more life...fucker"

    by Amazing Maurice

    I agree totally. I hate the fact that Ridley changed that line. Such a brilliant line of defiance in the face of 'GOD'. And it was perfect for the character of Batty to say.<p>Fucking stupid Lucasism right there.

  • March 26, 2010, 4:19 p.m. CST

    ominus

    by BurnHollywood

    "deckard as a replicant destroys the whole movie in a multiple levels.ie the final scene where the robot saves the life of the human does not have the same gravitas and dramatic impact if it turns out into a scene where a robot saves the life of another robot who thinks its human.see there? that thing hurts the logic,philosophy,the whole drama of the movie."<p> I have to disagree. Roy Batty is NOT one of Asimov's robots and doesn't obey the "Three Laws"...he remorselessly murders humans Chew, Sebastian and Tyrell earlier in the movie. This actually makes it very significant when he rescues Deckard...he's clearly recognized they're "brothers". In fact, the "Final Cut" edition adds Roy's line "Kinship!" as he grabs Deckard's wrist.<p> (How did he recognize Deckard was a replicant? Simple...he fought him. One of the things one might notice on a repeat viewing it that Deckard actually physically engages all four of the escaped replicants...something that should have easily killed a normal human, especially given that Leon and Roy are combat models, but he escapes with superficial injuries. Note the look of consternation on Zhora's face when he doesn't "die" when she initially attacks him...)<p> The main reason Roy rescues Deckard is to convey his remorse at the short life Tyrell's company has granted him to an equally short-lived replicant, who may or may not awaken to the fact that he's not a human.<p> The ugly revelation that Deckard is a replicant, by the way, is completely in line with most of Philip K Dick's other works...a good example is A SCANNER DARKLY, or THE IMPOSTER. He seemed haunted by the notion that a person could be so completely manipulated by the powers-that-be that everything they thought they knew could be a lie.

  • March 26, 2010, 4:21 p.m. CST

    http://tinyurl.com/d3xl3n

    by BixbySnyder

    Now THAT is cool news.(The link)

  • March 26, 2010, 5:02 p.m. CST

    http://tinyurl.com/dhvy2v

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>Theres a direct link to a BR Gameshot. Yes, those are ingame shots.(Done with The Crysis and Unreal engines)Too bad it's not a real game. They "only" built the street scene for their competition. Look at the craftmanship! Also, the Westwood game was supercool.</p> <p>One more:</p> <p>http://tinyurl.com/cvssws</p>

  • March 26, 2010, 5:08 p.m. CST

    http://tinyurl.com/ya4cesb

    by BixbySnyder

    Their 'Making of' thread. Im sorry, that was the last link. Im gonna stop before i get banned for spamming.

  • March 26, 2010, 5:08 p.m. CST

    BurnHollywood: You just blew my fragile little mind.

    by Royston Lodge

    I only ever "got" the origami unicorn as evidence of Deckard's "replicance".<p> The rest of those tidbits are like electricity through my cerebellum.

  • March 26, 2010, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Lisberger talking about Tron

    by Kaitain

    He's absolutely right about most adults simply not "getting" it when it came out. As an eight-year old, I was thinking, "What's not to get?" <p> I remember clearly reading many reviews that dismissed the movie as "a fantasy about a man trapped in a computer game", like it was some wacky collision of "Honey I Shrunk The Kids" and Pac-Man. But it was clearly about a system, an alternative, parallel world with its own working components, structure, religion etc. That seemed really cool to me.

  • March 26, 2010, 5:16 p.m. CST

    What about the final words from Bryant?

    by BixbySnyder

    Those are of course a dead give away.

  • March 26, 2010, 5:32 p.m. CST

    Re: BLADE RUNNER

    by ArmageddonProductions

    I just re-watched the BLADE RUNNER "Final Cut" on DVD and was amazed that, despite some of the questionable tech (the computer readouts, etc.), it remains one of the most believable depictions of the future ever made. By way of example, watch it back to back with MINORITY REPORT. The virtual touchscreens and goofy CGI-abetted effects pretty much looked dated when it was released. Another great example is ALIEN. Scott's ALIEN is wholly immersive -- the Nostromo looks and feels like a real futuristic spaceship, despite the vector-graphic computer screens and the whole "Mother" thing (was the Nostromo being automated by MS-DOS?), the planet and the alien spaceship and pretty much every design and artistic element about the movie was steeped in detail and designed by a group of dream-team geniuses (Syd Mead, Giger, Moebius, etc.), all distilled through Ridley Scott's lens and sensibilities. Scott hasn't created such a believably realistic fantasy world since LEGEND and I doubt that the he could do it again. Certainly, today's studio execs would be hanging over his shoulders, insisting on floating touchscreens, virtual reality, crappy CGI and a depressing lack of bold, original vision. I'll hang onto my BLADE RUNNER and ALIEN DVDs, much as I've had to do with many "classic" films of late, and turn a blind eye to the cashgrab "reboots".

  • March 26, 2010, 5:34 p.m. CST

    There's lots of little subtle clues about Deckard....

    by Amazing Maurice

    His eyes have that replicant glow during the kitchen scene with him and Rachel in the apartment.<p>His inablity to make sense of being in LOVE - hence the disfunctional love scene.<p>The fact that Batty calls him by NAME, and his sly hint - "Come on Deckard, show me what you're made of...."<p>And I think there's a couple of others that I've forgotten.<p>But at the end, when Deckard holds the origami unicorn, and he remembers Gaff's words, I always got the impression that Deckard had decided that it doesn't matter either way. He thinks, he feels, he loves. And thats all thats important.<p>Fuck man, one of the greatest movies ever.

  • March 26, 2010, 5:45 p.m. CST

    And thanks for the links BixbySnyder

    by Amazing Maurice

    Nice artwork indeed. Got one of those as a wallpaper now.

  • March 26, 2010, 6:01 p.m. CST

    How about remake it and...

    by MurderMostFowl

    remake it and make it absolutely clear that Decard is NOT a replicant at the end And then have Harrison Ford walk up to the camera and say "Fuck you, Scott"

  • March 26, 2010, 6:08 p.m. CST

    I Never Saw That PC Game!

    by LaserPants

    Looks pretty cool! I think they could do something even cooler now what with the new technologies n' what not.

  • March 26, 2010, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Also, didn't Deckard play a few notes of:

    by BixbySnyder

    Memories of Green on his piano, right? Gotta be an implanted memory(of green). But you'd have to own the soundtrack to get that clue. Yes, and it didn't matter. That's why Batty saves him. He was being human.

  • March 26, 2010, 6:27 p.m. CST

    It's actually not a real game

    by BixbySnyder

    It's a "mock-up" using Crysis and Unreal Engine 3. Besides i dont think that it's very playable with all that eyecandy. But the games ARE gonna look that good.(and better)

  • March 26, 2010, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Oh, man! Now you've gone and done it....

    by SkinJob69

    just popped a boner over "new Blade Runner project". Down, boy.

  • March 26, 2010, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Deckard=replicant is purely Ridley's invention

    by SkinJob69

    "Blade Runner" was based on a 1968 novel by Philip K. Dick called "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" In the novel, Deckard is not a replicant. There are many clues: He has a wife named Iran, and he owns a Penfield mood organ that he uses to adjust his moods. He also believes, or tries to believe, in the mass-media religion of Mercerism. Still, he isn't convinced of his own humanity. To be sure he isn't an android, Deckard has a fellow bounty hunter hook him up to the Voigt-Kampff equipment and ask him how he feels about killing androids. At the thought of killing androids, especially female androids, he has an empathic response, which shows his humanity. -from howstuffworks. c om

  • March 26, 2010, 8:16 p.m. CST

    Movie-Deckard had a wife, in the beginning

    by BixbySnyder

    http://tinyurl.com/ydrtxwl <p>Ridley simply took the story in a different direction during shooting.</p>

  • March 26, 2010, 8:19 p.m. CST

    SkinJob

    by umbral_shadow_

    Yeah, there was a misunderstanding between Ridley Scott and writer David Peoples. Scott thought Peoples made Deckard a replicant (he hadn't) and he ran with it. Philip K Dick hated the idea that Deckard was a replicant. He even tried to talk Scott out of it. The whole Deckard-replicant thing was entirely down to Scott.

  • March 26, 2010, 8:20 p.m. CST

    jiblets

    by gotilk

    Just because we skip writing about it here does not mean we were not impressed and even inspired (as I was) by that interview. Matter of fact, I was so engrossed, I skipped some sleep earlier in order to see the rest of the clips. (and that intro OVER And OVER in every clip was annoying before I stopped noticing it) A lot of times, people post here just to vent some steam or even just don't have a moment (at work maybe) to say anything in depth until later. But I sympathize with you anyway, a bit. It can get pretty predictable here. Still, nothing to change your tampon over.<br><br> Having gone there, I do think Lisberger is overlooked in regard to a LOT of (intentional or otherwise) futurist-type forecasting. Gibson and others in the literary cyberpunk movement get a lot of credit while he's kind of looked down on. Not a lot, but a little. The man is clearly a great thinker and so is the interviewer/conversationalist, Jenkins,who I will now be keeping track of. That was a really, really great conversation. Not as much an interview as a conversation. And sometimes that's better. I'll be looking for his books now, too. In the bookstore and hopefully on Audible. <br> But lastly, if you read this jiblets, have faith. It's honestly not always like this. Much. Ok, it is, I lied. But it's pretty easy to filter. Just look for posts that are 2 lines long or 78 lines long and read everything in between is my way of doing it. With the exception of Media Messiah. No matter how long that guy's posts are, I read every word.

  • March 26, 2010, 8:36 p.m. CST

    Cool picture, Bixby-

    by SkinJob69

    Must have been a "pre-war photo". And yes, he definitely took things in a different direction.

  • March 26, 2010, 8:41 p.m. CST

    Yes, shadow-

    by SkinJob69

    PKD was definitely unhappy with Scott's suggestion that Deckard was a replicant. It is a major deviation from "electric sheep", and it makes Deckard's character arc less dramatic (he goes from a human who looks at reps as objects to having genuine empathy with them.) If he was always a rep, this transformation would be moot-

  • March 26, 2010, 8:45 p.m. CST

    K. W. Jeter's novels-

    by SkinJob69

    Not sure if any of you have read Jeter's Blade Runner sequels (Edge of Human, Replicant Night), but I'm hoping any future film projects do not use these for an adaptation. They all rest on the Deckard=Replicant premise (and the stories are weak, as well).

  • March 26, 2010, 8:59 p.m. CST

    Eh, Unhappy? It's long been widely reported

    by BixbySnyder

    How pleased PKD was with the movie. I think it's mentioned on the Final Cut too. Don't spread misinformation, just cause you disagree. Hell, even Harrison Ford has come around to liking "the twist" more. I think Ford was pissed off at first. Mostly because people didn't "get" the twist.

  • March 26, 2010, 9:05 p.m. CST

    BR game was great

    by frank cotton

    but the resolution was fixed at 640x480 or 800x600 - it looks terrible on anything larger than a 14" monitor

  • March 26, 2010, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Bixby- $10 for any link...

    by SkinJob69

    to a PKD quote saying he likes the idea of Deckard being a replicant. BTW: PKD died before the film was released. So suggesting he liked it is suspect.<p> Further, whether or not he 'liked the film' is irrelevant. The original 1982 version did not have the controversial 'unicorn' scene included, which is the primary suggestion for Ridley's Deckard=replicant back-story.

  • March 26, 2010, 9:25 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner is NOT Dick's book

    by Amazing Maurice

    "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" was only the basis of it.<p>If they had filmed that page-for-page, word-for-word, it would be a convoluted mess of shit.<p>Blade Runner is its own beast.<p>And the guy who made it, Ridley, says that Deckard is a replicant.<p>End of fucking story.

  • March 26, 2010, 9:26 p.m. CST

    Harrison Ford: "Blade Runner was ...

    by SkinJob69

    ...not one of my favorite films. I tangled with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

  • March 26, 2010, 9:28 p.m. CST

    Well, Maurice...

    by SkinJob69

    if he'd wanted Deckard to be a rep in the 1982 film, why didn't he suggest it in the screenplay, rather than waiting for the director's cut to do that?

  • March 26, 2010, 9:34 p.m. CST

    You Don't Remake Perfection

    by nexxus7

    Many have tried. All have failed. You can never replicate Rutger Hauer's Roy, Ford's Deckard, Sean Young's Rachel or even Daryl Hannah's Pris, nevermind Sanderson's J.F. Sebastian and Olmos' Gaff. Th art direction, mood, pacing. Remains my favorite of all time. A continuation fine if ya gotta try to milk it. I kinda played the computer game, can't remember much it was in the early days and I'm not a gamer, but I remember it was basically some other agent who was like an hour behind Deckard. I can't remember what the heck he was doing, or the plotline, and pretty sure I didn't finish it.It was semi-interwoved into the main story somehow. And I think the idea of Deckard being a replicant is kinda lame. What is Scott thinking anyway, that's the kinda thing you never answer, like what's in the briefcase in Pulp Fiction, or who Carly Simon is saying is "So Vain". It adds to the legend.

  • March 26, 2010, 9:37 p.m. CST

    http://tinyurl.com/y92txa8

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>No money needed, thanks anyway. :)</p> <p>This was the only thing i could find on Dicks opinion: Seems he died a month before the movie was released.</p> And i agree with Amazing Maurice. I prefer the Deckard/Replicant way. Not only is it what the guy who made it says it is...I also think it makes for a more compelling story.

  • March 26, 2010, 9:37 p.m. CST

    I think Harrison Ford was being narrow-minded

    by Amazing Maurice

    "He [Ridley Scott] wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."<p>So he thought we wouldn't care just because Deckard came to the realisation that he was a replicant too?<p>Thats the whole point of the movie in my eyes - what IS human?<p>Maybe Ford was right, we're talking about a 30 year old movie here. Maybe Ford thought audiences weren't sophiscated at that time to deal with heavy ideas like that.<p>There's reasons that Blade Runner has had such an eduring legacy. And beiing way ahead of its time is certainly one of them.

  • March 26, 2010, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Here, Maurice, this guy says it better than I ever could...

    by SkinJob69

    "Ridley Scott said in an interview with Channel 4 that "Deckard is a replicant". Case closed? The director has spoken? Well, I believe that once a work of art, be it a movie, a painting, a song, a novel, or whatever, once completed, must stand on its own two feet. We neither need, nor want, the artist to explicate what he/she has made. If the artist didn't make things clear in the final form, and Ridley Scott had two chances, then they either did so for the sake of healthy artistic ambiguity, or because they merely failed to say what they wanted to say. The work is like the child: the parent cannot be referred to in order to clarify what the child is saying. Therefore, whatever Ridley Scott said at any time after the movie, especially the Director's Cut was released, has no bearing on the matter. Whether he shouts from the rooftops that Rick Deckard was a replicant, unless his movie actually says or implies so, he may as well be shouting out the letters of the alphabet. No artist can tell its audience what is what if their work hasn't already done so for them. Imagine, in a very Phildickian way, that Shakespeare has been spirited into the future of now, and starts telling everyone that there was nothing particularly complex about Hamlet after all: he was just a bit mad. Oh, and King Lear, too. So don't be writing those deep character analyses, you chaps, because I am the author and I know what's what, OK?"<p> August 10, 2003 Martin Connolly Isehara, Japan

  • March 26, 2010, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Bixby- that wasn't the bet

    by SkinJob69

    Re-read my post. Again, he may have liked the movie (interesting, since he, as you restated from my post, never lived to see it). That was the original version. He never suggested that he liked the idea of Deckard=Replicant, and I doubt he would have as anyone who's read his books would know. Many of his works, including BR, dwell on what it means to be human. Deckard's character arc is classic PKD.

  • March 26, 2010, 9:46 p.m. CST

    And i agree on NO REMAKE

    by BixbySnyder

    Remakes CAN be good. Not this though. There is nothing wrong, or dated about it. Hell, it looks timeless. I mean, we don't have to watch remakes if they suck and at least it brings awareness of the original. <p>And we usually get a sweet dvd/bluray of the original.</p> <p>Here...We already know about the original. And we have a final cut. I say, do a(good)remake of something else instead.</p> Like, hell i dont know. Soylent Green? Or Running Man

  • March 26, 2010, 9:50 p.m. CST

    That interview on Channel 4....

    by Amazing Maurice

    ... was Ridley Scott speaking about THE DIRECTOR'S CUT<p>There's a clue - THE DIRECTOR'S CUT i.e. HIS CUT - the version he wanted to release in first place except the the studio got nervous and spliced it up to make the 'happy ending' in the orginal theatrical release.<P>The genius of the film is that it has so many subtle layers that can read be read in so many differnt ways. In that interview, Mark Kermode specifically asked what about the meaning behind the unicorn.<p>And Ridley, for the first time confirmed that it meant Deckard was a replicant.<P>But the whole point of the film is about the fact that is doesn't matter. Thats the realisation that Deckard comes to in the end.

  • March 26, 2010, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Also, fuck my English

    by Amazing Maurice

    Its friday night, I've drank a fair bit. Just like Deckard slugging back that cheap bottle of whisky. Good times.

  • March 26, 2010, 9:53 p.m. CST

    By the by, i own Soylent Green on Dvd

    by BixbySnyder

    Just so i dont get any bullshit about that...

  • March 26, 2010, 9:59 p.m. CST

    Whiskey music:

    by BixbySnyder

    http://tinyurl.com/9crzl9

  • March 26, 2010, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Maurice, I saw the interview as well...

    by SkinJob69

    Are you suggesting that Ridley was saying that the 1982 version did NOT suggest Deckard was a Rep and that only the DC (the topic at hand) did? Verily, I say he meant both versions did that. <p> I'd agree that the point is "it doesn't matter" if a sentient being is human or machine for it to have 'humanity'. <p> Personally, and you may disagree, I think this point is better made if Deckard is a human. Otherwise his realization could be seen as- hey these reps are human too. I'm a rep? Well, great, now I'm human just like my brothers." Kind of lacks the impact of a human coming to the realization that these machines, which he previously killed without remorse, are actually capable of having 'humanity'. And when they die, they 'die', the are not 'retired'.

  • March 26, 2010, 10:06 p.m. CST

    Better to do Logan's Run remake...

    by SkinJob69

    but some may say The Island already did that. Not really, though. And sticking to the novel would yield a better screenplay.

  • March 26, 2010, 10:08 p.m. CST

    lol @ whisky music!

    by Amazing Maurice

    I just need a blanket and a balcony to over-look the traffic. But hey, did anyone actually watch the making of documentary? The orignal script had this really great opening scene. It was an old farm in the country-side. The farmer comes home at night to find Deckard sitting in a chair. They talk a little until Deckard blows a hole in the guy's chest. Then Deckard reaches into his mouth and pulls out a chip. Deckard then walks outside, while the farmer's dog barks around his ankles, and gets into his spinner, ascending in the sky, leaving the dog below him. That would be a pretty fucking cool opening in ANY movie. But no. No sequels please.

  • March 26, 2010, 10:15 p.m. CST

    SkinJob69

    by Amazing Maurice

    You raise a good point about Deckard's remorse. I think thats one of the subtle layers of the movie.<p>Deckard doesn't HAVE to be a replicant if you don't want him to be. Thats how cool it all is.<p>But personlly, I agree with Ridley.<P>I think the movie is ultimately about the gift of life. Whether he's human or not, Deckard expericence makes him realise it makes no difference. He thinks, he feels, he loves, he lives.

  • March 26, 2010, 10:21 p.m. CST

    No on Logans run remake

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>Your right, The Island already explored that theme. I maintain Soylent green, it's one of those movies that never became widely known. Fascinating story though. And still relevant today. After all, do we REALLY know what's in this?:</p> http://tinyurl.com/pwhryu

  • March 26, 2010, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Amazing Maurice-Yes, yes

    by BixbySnyder

    Like Frankenstein. Or Machine Man: http://tinyurl.com/ydx3wrf

  • March 26, 2010, 10:27 p.m. CST

    wth, they ARE making a remake of SG...

    by BixbySnyder

    http://tinyurl.com/y9k7w3j

  • March 26, 2010, 10:29 p.m. CST

    Machine Man!

    by Amazing Maurice

    Christ, there's blast from my youth! I'd forgotten all about that! kudos!

  • March 26, 2010, 10:46 p.m. CST

    SG was good...or was it just the Heston?

    by SkinJob69

    "When I was a kid, you could buy meat anywhere! Eggs they had, real butter! Not this... crap!"

  • March 26, 2010, 10:48 p.m. CST

    brought to you by Soylent red and Soylent yellow...

    by SkinJob69

    , high energy vegetable concentrates, and new, delicious, Soylent green. The miracle food of high-energy plankton gathered from the oceans of the world.

  • March 26, 2010, 10:50 p.m. CST

    As an unabashed Blade Runner fan...

    by rbatty024

    I'm ambiguous about the prospects for a new film. The Ridley Scott of today isn't the Ridley Scott who made Blade Runner. He is a director who, I'm sorry to say, has fizzled out in recent years. I would love to see him return to form, but I don't see that happening any time soon. In fact, these days his films are merely one step above those of his brother, Tony Scott.

  • March 26, 2010, 10:50 p.m. CST

    SkinJob69

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>If you want impact. I mean...imagine finding out you were artificial. That's impact. Also, it strenghtens Batty saving Deckard. Not only did Roy show humanity.</p> <p>He basically said: Hey, look...we dont have to follow the "programming".</p>

  • March 26, 2010, 10:54 p.m. CST

    Fair enough, Bixby...

    by SkinJob69

    If they were going that direction, though, they may as well have dedicated screen time to exploring that angle apart from a single facial expression from Deckard. So much left vague, when they could have delved into it a bit more in a substantial epilogue. Just my opinion.

  • March 26, 2010, 10:57 p.m. CST

    Sg is good

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>And since i just read that 24 has been cancelled. I have stunt-casted(a hobby of mine)Keifer Sutherland as Hestons cop role.</p> <p>Rutger Hauer as Sol Roth, the retired old guy who has seen it all.<p>

  • March 26, 2010, 10:59 p.m. CST

    Sequels, Ridley? "Aren't you the 'good' man?"

    by Koborover

    Another BR movie can only be a shadow of the original so please don't try.

  • March 26, 2010, 11 p.m. CST

    Some things are best left vague

    by BixbySnyder

    Otherwise we get too many explanations. Then before you know it they'll make a Bladerunner prequel.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:06 p.m. CST

    If you were going to make a prequel...

    by SkinJob69

    would you have Deckard being on the BRU for years, hunting down reps. Or would you prefer him having been created to deal with Batty's gang, and his memories of being a successful BR being implanted?

  • March 26, 2010, 11:12 p.m. CST

    If you try to explain everything...

    by umbral_shadow_

    ...you end up with a sterile film. It's no coincidence that the two greatest SF films of all time are both hugely ambiguous - Blade Runner and 2001.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:17 p.m. CST

    "If you were to make a prequel:"

    by BixbySnyder

    I wouldn't. It could never, ever live up to what people had imagined. But...The first one. I prefer Deckard working for years. Also, isn't Gaff also a Replicant? Has this been confirmed?(I dont own the bluray yet, yeah, yeah i know...)

  • March 26, 2010, 11:19 p.m. CST

    Gaff's a replicant?

    by SkinJob69

    Didn't know that. Never heard that.<p> Someone did some good design on his complexion though, if he is.

  • March 26, 2010, 11:27 p.m. CST

    I always assumed he was one too

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>He is a Bladerunner, right?. Then there's his funky eyes, and him placing the Unicorn for Deckard.</p> <p>Maybe as a warning to a fellow Replicant. Giving him a head start.</p>

  • March 27, 2010, 1:09 a.m. CST

    Gaff's identity is the last mystery...

    by BurnHollywood

    He could be the fifth replicant escapee, he could also be a sympathetic human.<p> My theory is that he was the original memory donor for Deckard. When Leon makes short work of Holden, it becomes clear that the Nexus-6 models are too much for a human blade runner to handle, so Tyrell and the LAPD huddle up and work out this plan to have a memory-grafted replicant hunt down the escapees.<p> In a manner similar to PK Dick's original "Deckard", Gaff empathy is stirred after he witnesses Deckard's reluctance to simply kill Rachel, and gives the two of them a head start.<p> I kinda hope this mystery is never resolved, however...

  • March 27, 2010, 1:17 a.m. CST

    GIANT ASIAN WOMEN ON GIANT TV SCREENS?

    by SSquirrel

    They're in Tokyo.

  • March 27, 2010, 3:53 a.m. CST

    ΒurnHollywood

    by ominus

    you didnt understand me.The problem is not with Asimov's laws which are irrelevant or with any other kind of story logic or plot explanation,but with the fact that it changes the meaning and the dramatic feeling of the most important scenes of the movie. <p>For example,the scene where Batty saves Deckard.If Deckard is a replica,what that scene transfered to you the viewer is this: <p>"The main reason Roy rescues Deckard is to convey his remorse at the short life Tyrell's company has granted him to an equally short-lived replicant, who may or may not awaken to the fact that he's not a human." <p>BUT if Deckard is a human being,what that scene meant to me is this: <p>After when Batty saves Deckard and dies,Deckard stays there astonished from the turn of the events and we hear his voice giving his explanatation of why Batty saved him: <p>maybe because as he was dying,at that last moments,he loved life more than anything else,and not just his life but everybody else's life,even my life. <p>and its an explanation which as a viewer i accept,and by doing this the scene transits to me personally, the following meaning: <p>Batty during his last moments,valued something that a lot of people find in this world for granted and ignore it for pettier things: the most important thing of all,the gift of Life <p>And while a lesser man with nothing to lose since he was going to die,would let Deckard to die just for taking his revenge for what Deckard did or just because he was too bitter and angry against the human world for denying him the gift of life,Batty didnt do this. <p>instead, through an act of humanity and grandeur,he saves his enemy,he gives him the valuable gift of life and that is why Deckard is so baffled after being saved: <p>Batty at the end of his life becomes more human than the humans who made him,controlled him and practically killed him.He becomes more human than his human hunter,who throughout the movie was more like a force of death for all the friends of Batty. <p>And that at the end makes Batty a tragic character,he is not anymore a killer robot with a grudge against the human race,he is a cool bad-ass villain who kills to make a point or for revenge or because he has a conflict with the world.He is someone who just wants to live,to share and keep alive his memories of attack ships in Orion and C-beams near the Tanhouse gate,thats all that he wanted.But fate had other things for him.. <p>BurnHollywood you see now how the scene gets interpreted if Deckard is human? how the character of Batty transforms differently? how the relation between Deckard/Batty,human/robot in that scene sends a different emotional meaning? <p>whereas in your interpretation what we have is only a misfortune killer robot which saves another disillusioned robot,an act of remorse as you say through a mutual understanding because of their kinship: they are brothers,they are together on this,Deckard might not know it but he will have the same fate like Batty and finally Batty gives him the chance to live more and through his remorse,shows him how much valuable is life for everyone. <p>for me this kind of interpretation,although its fine,it does not satisfy me at all as a receiver of an artwork.It simply does not give me the right "clicks" in my emotional and intellectual state when watching the filmv from the POV that Deckard is a robot.and i explained you the reasons.

  • March 27, 2010, 6:19 a.m. CST

    agree with you ominus.....

    by iwasredempted

    ultimately batty gets redemption and appears to have a soul. instead of being a tool for the tyrell corporation. "more human than human is our motto." in the old testament the word redemption refers to the ransom of slaves. yeah i just googled that...ha. which fits perfectly with the dilemma of the skinjobs. batty is an amazing film antihero. he is like the scifi james dean or cool hand luke. saying bladerunner needs more explosions is like saying east of eden needed more explosions. i like the ambiguity of deckard's true nature but if there is a sequel or prequel then all of that atmosphere and ambiguity is pretty much shot. leave it alone. this shouldn't be turned into a franchise. so leave it the fuck alone.

  • March 27, 2010, 6:46 a.m. CST

    Scott has admitted...

    by SonOfChiba

    he got the idea of Deckard being a rep purely thru not listening properly to the writers. Why he seems oddly proud of this fact, I'll never know. BR is the ONLY film where I think - and this no slight on the overall quality of the film, it is a masterpice - I disagree with the director. Deckard being a rep = a so-so twist Deckard being human = vastly more interesting and, frankly, what the writers actually wrote.

  • March 27, 2010, 7:11 a.m. CST

    Any Sci-Fi setting done by Ridley....

    by Cervantes

    ....will at least be a visual feast. Just as ALIEN and BLADERUNNER were.<P>Sure, he may not be the same groundbreaking director that he was in his early days, but he still has that 'artistic' eye which would still us plenty of eye-candy with any project.<P>For that reason alone, I am looking forward to whatever ALIEN:ORIGINS turns out to be. I've no doubt any BLADERUNNER 'sequel' would look amazing if nothing else.<P>Not that I don't have issues with Ridley, as you count me as one of those who happen to despise the change of the "....fucker! line. Just a personal choice of course, just like I despise the horrid re-colouration of the 'Final Cut'. And what is it with Ridley and a lot of other director's nowadays, who retrospectively overly-tamper with the colour-timing on their re-releases? The original colours of BLADERUNNER 'popped'-out beautifully compared to his horrid 'creative choice' to 'tint' his latest version. He's done the same with his ALIEN:DIRECTOR'S CUT to the detriment of that too. I'd rather watch his amazing visuals in their original colouration, compared to these overly-darkened versions, thanks, so will stick with the early releases of those.<P>Just as an aside, I saw BLADERUNNER on the big screen for the first time in it's 'voice-over' incarnation, without the 'unicorn' dream sequence. I remember that it didn't come across that Deckard was anything except human, and remember thinking that the 'origami' unicorn which Gaff left at the end had no other significance than being a random 'indicator' to let Deckard know that he'd decided not to kill Rachael after all, even though he had the chance. It came across as sign of Gaff's 'professional respect' for Deckard, and a way of indicating his own 'humanity' since Rachael wasn't really threat to anyone, unlike the other 'skinjobs' that Deckard had to deal with.<P>The 'unicorn' design just seemed a visually-interesting design that Ridley had chosen, and came across as something 'magical' and 'wish-fulfilling' to me in it's original release context I remember. Of course Ridley then went on to make LEGEND shortly after, and I just thought he liked 'unicorns' in general after that....

  • March 27, 2010, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Gaff's origami unicorn...

    by umbral_shadow_

    The origami unicorn basically was Gaff's way of telling Deckard that he had read his file and Deckard is a replicant. But it has a double meaning. Gaff is telling Deckard that he's going to be coming after Deckard and Rachel because he is the Blade Runner "top dog" now. By the end of the film, Deckard and Rachel have become the new Batty and Pris - replicant fugitives on the run. Gaff in all likelyhood is also a replicant with implanted memories. But like Deckard, he's still unaware of it.

  • March 27, 2010, 8:31 a.m. CST

    ...and at the end everyone in BR is a replicant

    by ominus

    even the cop boss

  • March 27, 2010, 8:49 a.m. CST

    Harrison Ford sounds like an idiot

    by LaserPants

    "He [Ridley Scott] wanted the audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."<br><br>In the end, isn't the audience supposed to cheer (or, at the very least, feel empathy) for Roy Batty? Guess Ford can't wrap his head around the brooding, ironic, existential sci-fi noir w/ hammer subtle religious symbolism of it all.

  • March 27, 2010, 8:50 a.m. CST

    Oh, Yes, And Deckard Is A Replicant

    by LaserPants

    The movie practically hits you over the head with it.

  • March 27, 2010, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Gaff: Didn't mean to open up a can of worms

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>Geez, sorry. I like everyones Gaff theories. But BurnHollywood is on the money here. It's a mystery. Let's keep it like that. No online petitions either for or against. Or else we'll see an explanation in the future. Also, RE: "Killer Robots" Deckard was one too, rememember? His realisation was... The same as Battys.(And if we are going with my Gaff theory. He had come to the same realisation too.</p> <p>My take on it though: Gaff is an old, Bladerunner and a Replicant, who has been fighting his brothers and sisters a long time.</p> <p>When he discovered Deckard had put 2+2 together....(with a little help from his friends, of course.)</p> <p>He decided to cut Deckard some slack. Leaving him a clue with the Unicorn. One of the reasons: He'd been there himself. Maybe...also sympathy for his kind.</p> <p>Also, Dude, "robot" is not the preferred nomenclature. Artificial Human, please. (Or Replicant)</p>

  • March 27, 2010, 9:25 a.m. CST

    ominus

    by BurnHollywood

    "maybe because as he was dying,at that last moments,he loved life more than anything else,and not just his life but everybody else's life,even my life."<p> The quote above is from the original theatrical release, with the narration and happy ending tacked on at the studio's behest. In that version, Deckard is unquestionably a human and Rachel's lifespan is undefined. On the other hand, in the 2006 "Final Cut" edition, Deckard is almost certainly a replicant, he and Rachel are as doomed as Batty and the only mystery is Gaff's identity and motivations.<p> Which version a person prefers is up to personal taste...I side with Scott and his Final Cut. In that version, Batty's mercy is not driven by a last minute humanity, but by his need to communicate to a fellow doomed soul the overwhelming tragedy of their brief existence. Deckard may have survived their conflict, but soon enough, he'll be in the same desperate state as Batty.<p> But there's more: When Gaff arrives seconds later, he leaves Deckard with the quizzical remark "It's a shame she won't live...but then again, who does?" The implication of this statement is that, short as their lives may be, humans share the replicant's mortality. Wouldn't Batty and the other escapees have better ended their lives enjoying what was left of their freedom instead of their vain, perilous attempt to prolong it by returning to Tyrell's headquarters? At the end, Batty appears to have regretted this choice, and saved Deckard so that he at least could spend his remaining existence more fruitfully. For reasons of his own, Gaff also mercifully spares Rachel, and the two escape to an unknown fate and future...the same as we all have, really.<p> I find that at least as poetic and meaningful.

  • March 27, 2010, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Ridley Sci-Fi Im onboard...

    by IamZardoz

    Just no remake of BR. I agree with a post above he could make a hell of a Logans Run!

  • March 27, 2010, 9:40 a.m. CST

    LaserPants-http://tinyurl.com/ykkd3p9

    by BixbySnyder

    Ford is a smarter guy than people give him credit for. Funnier too. The grumpy old man routine is a schtick.

  • March 27, 2010, 10:08 a.m. CST

    Battys conclusion+Deckards conclusion=

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>Same thing really. They were puppets(literally) who discovered the strings. Then they cut them.</p> <p>Putting it in simplified, but still valid SW terms: The same conclusion that Darth Vader finally came to in this clip.</p> http://tinyurl.com/ygepymc <p>Around 6:17.</p>

  • March 27, 2010, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Sorry to bust a bubble here...

    by henryJenkins

    I can't speak to what Steve might know but my reference to Bladerunner was talking about Purefold. We had hosted an extended discussion of Purefold with key participants at the MIT Futures of Entertainment Conference last November. And to be honest, I had no idea it had been called off until I read some of the buzz about the interview. If you want to learn more about the original plans for Purefold, here's a webcast of the MIT Panel --http://tinyurl.com/yl8fzhb

  • March 27, 2010, 5:58 p.m. CST

    In the original novel...

    by Baryonyx

    ...Deckard is NOT a replicant. Why add that nonsense to the movie the way they did with the special editions/director's cut?

  • March 27, 2010, 6:17 p.m. CST

    It's a shame RIdley Scott is wasting his time with historics/mod

    by TakingScorpiosCalls

    set moives. His fantastical eye was unparalleled, he had an art background unlike many other directors and when he utilized that with scifi/fantasy Alien, BR, even Legend was eye popping, he needs to do scifi or fantasy again and cut it out.

  • March 27, 2010, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Because, the original novel...

    by BixbySnyder

    I not the movie. Also, the more i've been thinking about a Ridley Scott X-Men movie...That would be pretty good.

  • March 27, 2010, 9:32 p.m. CST

    BurnHollywood

    by ominus

    "Which version a person prefers is up to personal taste...I side with Scott and his Final Cut. In that version, Batty's mercy is not driven by a last minute humanity, but by his need to communicate to a fellow doomed soul the overwhelming tragedy of their brief existence." <p>Look i dont have any problem to accept such meaning in this specific scene.The real problem is that the scene is unable to enhance emotionally such a message because of the way the rest of the whole story has been constructed prior to this scene. <p>for example you say that Batty communicates to a fellow "soul" which means that you already have taken as granted that both Batty and Deckard is "human",he has a "soul" .But prior to this scene,where exactly is Batty,Deckard or the rest of the replicas ,are shown to be "human"? Where exactly in the movie Batty has became something more than a skinjob? in what scene we get that revelation? <p>The story before the scene,explores the concept of the memories defining the being of a man,BUT it also points out that the replicas althougth they posses memories,they dont have emotions (thus the word replicas),they are soulless.It also says that eventually they will develop their own emotions if given the time.The story has establshed these facts and until the scene where Batty saves Deckard,we dont get any major dramatic scene which changes these facts and turn Batty and Deckard into something more than skinjobs.Which means that when Batty saves Deckard to show to him the tragedy of their fate,the movie fails to transfer to me the viewer the gravity of this tragedy because the DIRECTOR has failed to prepare me emotionally for this scene,since he didnt make me to feel the humanity of the replicas prior to this scene,thus feeling compassion and sadness for the tragedy of Batty,Deckard etc. <p>BUT if Deckard is human,then the meaning of the scene is both changed and enhanced because the scene makes both the revelation of the replica finally developing emotions,gaining its humanity but at the same time its tragic fate to die before having a chance to live and experience his humanity,his emotions,his "soul".You see the difference there? the original scene is about transformation and tragedy,the final cut scene is only about communication of the tragedy,whereas transformation is nowhere to be found in the movie.Thats why i find the latter scene inferior.

  • March 27, 2010, 10:47 p.m. CST

    No Reboot...Sequel!

    by Captain Happy

    Yes, I am one of the many people who consider Blade Runner to be one of the best movies ever made, bar none...if they did it right, a SEQUEL would be fantastic...consider this...a saga of a whole new bunch of Replicants on Earth, good Replicants, bad Replicants, people who we aren't sure are Replicants or not. The possibilities are endless...& if they stay true to Ridley's original setting...fantastic.

  • March 27, 2010, 11:21 p.m. CST

    It doesn't matter what Deckard is

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    When humanity becomes a corporate institution, thus losing it's soul — the technology it creates evolves and becomes more human-like, thus, searching for a soul. That theme comes through either way — even if the entire world of BR is populated by replicants.

  • March 27, 2010, 11:52 p.m. CST

    yo REDD, thanks for spoiling Moon asshole

    by The_Crimson_King

    Goddammit

  • March 27, 2010, 11:53 p.m. CST

    I hate people who spoil shit with no warning

    by The_Crimson_King

    fuck every one of you cunts

  • March 28, 2010, 3:13 a.m. CST

    ominus

    by BurnHollywood

    "for example you say that Batty communicates to a fellow "soul" which means that you already have taken as granted that both Batty and Deckard is "human",he has a "soul" .But prior to this scene,where exactly is Batty,Deckard or the rest of the replicas ,are shown to be "human"? Where exactly in the movie Batty has became something more than a skinjob? in what scene we get that revelation?"<p> I'm surprised you're asking this. Earlier in the movie, Deckard is befuddled to discover that the seemingly simple-minded Leon has been taking photos...replicants *shouldn't* have hobbies. Batty was clearly in love with Priss, and visibly mourns her death. Rachel loves Deckard in the face of his duty to retire her. All human emotions that would be extraneous to a machine. And in an important change to the Final Cut, Batty refers to Tyrell as "father" instead of "fucker"...as the T-800 in the first TERMINATOR demonstrated, cussing somebody out ("Fuck you, asshole.") is a useful subroutine, but what good is developing a parental attachment to your maker? Why did Leon fly off the handle and try to kill Holden when it came to the subject of his "mother"?<p> And "mercy" is hardly the measure of a being's sentience or possession of a "soul" (I'm a Buddhist...we don't believe in "souls" anyway). Nazis and Khmer Rouge were fully human, too.<p> The idea of a replicant rescuing a human makes for a pretty ending, but given that we may see sentient machines within the next few decades, the idea of a replicant rescuing a replicant (while remorselessly dealing with any humans in his way) is a much darker, more intriguing development (IMHO). Is BLADE RUNNER actually depicting the beginning of the end of mankind?

  • March 28, 2010, 4:41 a.m. CST

    Sequel thoughts

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>I think that if they are going to make a sequel.(Please, dear god no.) It would be about a "war" between Replicants and humans.</p> <p>The events in the first movie would show the beginning of a rebellion.</p> <p>Using logic, this is the only place where the story could go, IF there were to be a sequel.</p> <p>I still say Ridley should be in charge of the X-Men reboot instead. (Rutger Hauer as Magneto.)</p>

  • March 28, 2010, 8:16 a.m. CST

    BixbySnyder

    by BurnHollywood

    Agreed, but it would take some serious creativity to avoid treading on the same ground that THE MATRIX, TERMINATOR and GALACTICA series already have...

  • March 28, 2010, 8:17 a.m. CST

    didn't the original movie voice over indicate that gaff...

    by iwasredempted

    presumed that rachel had a 4 year lifespan also and would soon expire. "it's too bad she won't live but then again who does." also it gave the character gaff a little more depth showing that he could empathize with a skinjob.<br>the limited edition bladerunner documentary was fantastic if any one has watched it. ridley went through hell making that movie. uncooperative crew and his brother prior to him going forward with bladerunner was dying of cancer. that obviously informed the making of that film and it's themes of mortality, what constitutes a soul or sentience etc..

  • March 28, 2010, 8:35 a.m. CST

    @BurnHollywood

    by BixbySnyder

    Agree on that. Serious creativity would be needed. And i would still prefer no sequel. Also the "X-Men" is a bit too fresh in the publics mind. Which, yes, can be viewed from a "gay angle". But also basically ANYONE being opressed, in one form or another. One of the Themes here is: "think for yourself." Religious people: it doesn't make God obsolete if you are concerned about those issues. I'd say, quite the contrary.

  • March 28, 2010, 3:32 p.m. CST

    BurnHollywood

    by ominus

    you dont understand,i am not talking about clues but strong emotional scenes which showcase the humanity of the replicas. <p>Throughout the movie,even from the start we know that these replicas are something special: they want to live,which is not just the instinct of survival but the intention to taste the gifts of life (remember the scene where Batty kisses Pris in the film,they are lovers thus they have emotions). <p>Now in the scene where Batty finds Pris dead,he mourns her,he gets angry and he wants revenge.Its a strong emotional scene which shows that Batty has feelings,but its the next scene where he saves Batty,that reveals in a such strong emotional level his humanity.and why is that? because Deckard is human,which makes him the enemy,a deserved to die enemy since he killed Batty's lover.You see there how these two scenes are so nicely connected together and how the one scene amplifies the dramatic impact of the other? <p>And this impact does not work only for Batty,but also for Deckard.there is a revelation for him too,a machine being more human than him,its at this point,this act of pure humanity from Batty that also transforms Deckard.The "human" Deckard becomes human again,he feels for the fate of the replicas,they are not skinjobs anymore to him and he understands the value of life.Thats why in the next scene,he goes to find and leave from all these in order to live together: he genuinely loves her,he no more has any restraints that she is a replica,and he doesnt want any more to be a blade runner not only because he changed his attitude towards the replicas,but because he has started valuing his own life and wants to make something better with it,like spending with the woman he loves. <p>In fact i think that the last scene with Deckard's monologue about Racher and life,i think there is an implication that Rachel as a machine without expiration date,might live foverer,whereas Deckard as human,he is mortal which means he will eventually die.And that detail gives a new meaning to the film: Deckard and us the humans,we are the tragic beings since our fate is to eventually die.We should enjoy our life as we can,instead of spending it in petty things. <p>And thats why i love the thetrical cut where Deckard is human: because at the end the film is about us the humans,through Deckard we see ourselves,and through the act of humanity from Batty we get the important lesson of the value of life.whats more for a movie viewer to ask from a movie?

  • March 28, 2010, 4:24 p.m. CST

    NO

    by Suskis

    If there is one movie that does NOT need a prequel, a sequel or a remake, is BLADE RUNNER.

  • March 28, 2010, 4:38 p.m. CST

    Deckard as Human>Deckard as Replicant....

    by Cervantes

    ....since I happen to agree with a lot of the points by ominus there. Just seems more 'meaningful' all-round when seen in this context I reckon.<P>And at least I get to keep Batty's 'Fucker' response to his short lifespan, as well as the original colour-timing.<P>Now I just have to come up with a reason that Deckard and Rachael managed to find such scenic surroundings to escape to at the end....considering people wanted to go 'off-world' to get away from all the pollution etc....

  • March 28, 2010, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Is Bruce Boxleitner playing RINZLER?

    by JIMBOCOP

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/j imbocop/4470506564/ By the way, Rutger Hauer always says he feels sorry for Harrison Ford - "The guy thought HE was the hero, but he's just the guy who f**ked the refridgerator and then finds out he's one too!" End of line.

  • March 28, 2010, 7:10 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner...

    by Bubba Gillman

    ...is a masterpiece of art direction, visual effects, sound design - all of the technical aspects of movie making. And it works when viewed as a sort of tone poem - a moody rumination on the meaning of life. But it completely fails in the areas of story telling and character development. Imagine if all that ambition and craft had been in the service of a compelling narrative. And this from a fan. I say go for it.

  • March 28, 2010, 8:02 p.m. CST

    'Sequel' is spelt like this

    by SimonDunkle

    A lot of people seem to think it's "sequal", which makes them a little bit stupid in the brain. Probably people who are "sc-fi"/"film" fans who don't like Blade Runner.

  • March 28, 2010, 8:27 p.m. CST

    yes Cervantes

    by TakingScorpiosCalls

    (love your books btw) whatever clues in the movie, he did this, that he had eyes , someone said this, he put that down, metallic penis, who gives a shit, human Deckard just feels more right to have it be that.

  • March 28, 2010, 8:29 p.m. CST

    I agree the art direction in this movie is beautiful

    by TakingScorpiosCalls

    The haunted toy room when Deckard moves through it was freakin eerie with that orange light around it, also random little things like a random shot of some porcelain tiles with water running down it intercut during the finale wharehouse, little things like that make my bowels fuzzy.

  • March 28, 2010, 9:55 p.m. CST

    @ SimonDunkle- "spelt"? Really?

    by SkinJob69

    Your statement would have been more effective without that mis-spelling, my fellow BR fan.

  • March 28, 2010, 9:58 p.m. CST

    Gaff: "Are you a repli-CAN or a repli-CAN'T?"

    by SkinJob69

    If that's in the sequel, I'm there.

  • March 28, 2010, 10:09 p.m. CST

    http://tinyurl.com/ybwxw87

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>Someone was building the Apartment of J.F. Sebastian, for the competition.(Ultimately the street scene won.)</p> http://tinyurl.com/y92wamf <p>Another shot.</p>

  • March 29, 2010, 12:14 a.m. CST

    Replicant war

    by Kaitain

    "I think that if they are going to make a sequel.(Please, dear god no.) It would be about a "war" between Replicants and humans." <p> I think The Sci-Fi Channel did a series of that, and called it "Battlestar Galactica".

  • March 29, 2010, 12:41 a.m. CST

    ominus

    by BurnHollywood

    "In fact i think that the last scene with Deckard's monologue about Racher and life,i think there is an implication that Rachel as a machine without expiration date,might live foverer,whereas Deckard as human,he is mortal which means he will eventually die."<p> Interesting assessment, interesting conversation. There's kind of a knee-jerk opinion in the BLADE RUNNER fan fellowship that the Director's/Final Cuts are just better...you make a good case that the reputation of the theatrical cut has been unjustifiably tarnished.<p> Thanks for pointing that out.

  • March 29, 2010, 3:50 a.m. CST

    Cervantes about the scenic surroundings

    by ominus

    at the end of the movie.i always had the impression,at least in the original cut, that they were symbolic: they escaped the ugliness of their world and found the paradise in their love. <p>I dont think that there was any green left in the BRs Earth.In the final cut the symbolism might have a different meaning,someone above pointed out that Deckard was playing Memories of Green in his piano.I dont know maybe the finale meant that Deckard with Rachel left the city and started a long "travel" of experiencing new and real memories? who knows,but i do believe that these scenes are symbolic,not real inside the movie. <p>BurnHollywood as i said i like the final cut too,i dont have any problem with it,its just that i prefer the original one for the reasons i explained.but anyway thanx for the conversation and your interesting opinions too.

  • March 29, 2010, 4:02 a.m. CST

    Nobody knows what Shoilder Of Orion means, anyway

    by AsimovLives

    We assume it has anything to do with the constelation Of Orion, but that's just a presupotion based on conjecture, at best. Besides, Constaltions don't exist in reality not as we see them in the night sky. The perception of stars being part of a constelation is due to an optical illusion, in truth the stars who make them are very distant form one another and are not even related by proximity or anything. Maybe the Shoulder Of Orion is just something that is completly unrelated with the constelation of Orion.<br><br>Or maybe, maybe, the battle at the Sholder of Orion is something we should never get to watch, and leave it all to our imagination. Has worked pretty well like that way so far.

  • March 29, 2010, 4:30 a.m. CST

    maybe its a bar named Shoulder of Orion

    by ominus

    located somewhere in the off-world colonies. its the favourite place for all the soldiers,thugs,low-lifes etc to hang out there.One day Batty and his company were there having a good time and being drunk,until a human ex-blade runner called them skinjobs.The a fight ensues in the bar,which is so big that it has become a legend between the replicas. <p>yep probably the battle was something like that :P

  • March 29, 2010, 8:55 a.m. CST

    Replicants not Repilca's

    by orcus

    Ominus, you might want to correct that. Also this is a must read for any Blade Runner Fan: http://www.amazon.com/Future-Noir-Making-Blade-Runner/dp/0061053147/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269870868&sr=1-3-spell <p>Just remove the spaces

  • March 29, 2010, 9:15 a.m. CST

    Come to think about it

    by orcus

    Which part has the Blade Runner ref in the above vids?

  • March 29, 2010, 9:56 a.m. CST

    BurnHollywood

    by AsimovLives

    I don't agree with your post above about the reasons for Deckard being a replicant. And yet, your reasons do make sense. This is the beauty of BLADE RUNNER, and it's subtle style and approach to storyteling, that it can give this hints and reasons for both the pro and the anti-Deck-A-Rep movements. This is one of the reasons why the movie is so great. Me, i stand on the Deck-Not-A-Rep position, yet you gave a very good reasons FROM THE MOVIE to why your view it makes sense. More then anything, it proves this movie engages the intleligenc eof the viewers, that you don't need to dumb down to enjoy it, in fact, quite the contrary, you need to smart up to enjoy it, and the more you smart up, the more you enjoy. God, i love this movie!

  • March 29, 2010, 9:57 a.m. CST

    BLADE RUNNER: No Movie for Idiots

    by AsimovLives

  • March 29, 2010, 10 a.m. CST

    Orcus

    by AsimovLives

    Dude, i bought that book back in the day. Couldn't had arrived fast enough. Until the 4 hours making off from the DC DVD, it was the definitive authority of all things BLADE RUNNER. The dude who wrote it later did the audio comentary for the workprint version from the mega-super-dupper DVD.

  • March 29, 2010, 10:24 a.m. CST

    ominus

    by AsimovLives

    I think and i find it pretty obvious that in the original theater version of BR, the green scenery outside the city is deliberatly to be taken literaly. It was part of the idea of turning an happy ending for the movie. In the making off doc and in additional extras we see that the original extra-ending for BR was shot in a heavily over-cast day and on a montain road right next to a oil pipeline, the idea being, outside of the cities, the world is also polluted and grey. And the movie's financers also found that too depressing, to the point Ridley Scott was forced to tackle another ending by using unused shots from Stanley Kubrick's THE SHINING, which Kubrick gave them as a favour without charge. On the provisio that they wouldn't use shots that already were on Kubrick's movie. By then, BR's production had run out of money.

  • March 29, 2010, 10:25 a.m. CST

    Sweet book, no?

    by orcus

    Orcus read it a few years back and was enthralled! Damn near read it in one sitting. Once Orcus gets off his scaly backside, Orcus is going to read that Rugter Hauer book. Glad you liked it. Orcus is gonna have to mark his calendar again on another thing we agree on :)

  • March 29, 2010, 10:31 a.m. CST

    @Kaitain

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>Of course, hence "Please, dear god no." It's not about what i want to SEE. I was trying to think where they would take the story towards.</p> <p>Someone mentioned,(probably sarcasm)that maybe the police chief was a replicant. That maybe all of them were.</p> <p>Its certainly possible. Tyrell was supposed to be one. In a scene cut from the movie, the real Tyrell was in a healing chamber.</p> <p>Meaning that Batty killed another Replicant. Obviously it's a cut scene, so it's not the story. I think that's where the story was headed in the beginning. That mankind had gone extinct, but resurrected through Replicants.</p> <p>But since the Tyrell scene was cut and was human in the movie. All of that is a moot point. As the story played out, the main theme left to build on is about 'an uprising.' </p> <p>Im gonna stop now. Hollywood Fuckers probably gets their ideas this way.</p>

  • March 29, 2010, 10:35 a.m. CST

    Orcus

    by AsimovLives

    Alright then.

  • March 29, 2010, 10:44 a.m. CST

    I'm not opposed of paralel stories

    by AsimovLives

    I'm not opposed of paralel stories set in the same universe. A sidequel, so to speak, in lieu of an actual sequel, which would just be ridiculous. I think the Tale Of Deckard And Rachael ended with BLADE RUNNER proper, and a continuation to that would just be absurd.<br><br>One thing that always made me wonder about the world of BR is if Tyrell Corporation is the only corporation which has the monolopy of the production of replicants, or are replicants made like cars, different models made by different corporations, and Tyrell is the replicant's Mercedes. If so, who are the Hondas, Toyotas, BMWs, Ferraris, Fords, Fiats, VWs... and which is the GM which makes the really crappy replicants.

  • March 29, 2010, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Actually there are 3-4 BR sequel novels

    by orcus

    Called Replicant Night by K. W. Jeter, who also did a few Star Wars "Tales of.." novels, if Orcus reckons correctly. The are out of print and are rather good reads. If Orcus remembers correctly Deckard runs in to the human template of Roy Batty, who tries to get into Deckards head that Deckard is the replicant. Orcus also remembers that Rachael was near the end of her lifecycle and Deckard had to keep her in stasis in some place in the woods. That and he is also wanted by the police for theft of property.

  • March 29, 2010, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Orcus

    by Kaitain

    Ya, Future Noir is a very interesting read. <p> This is also a good watch: <p> http://tinyurl.com/nqhyyv

  • March 29, 2010, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Thank ye Kaitain, haven't seen this in a while

    by orcus

    Orcus vaguely remembers this from once upon a time. Orcus is in the process or archiving his media, and this may have popped up at some point. Is this also on the boxed set?

  • March 29, 2010, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Yeah, I think so

    by Kaitain

    Kermode's C4 specials often end up on box sets. He has at least three specialist obsessions: The Exorcist, Blade Runner and The Shawshank Redemption. I think you can find his documentaries on some version of all of these. <p> I suspect in due course he'll be doing something similar for Pan's Labyrinth and maybe Let The Right One In, as he's made obsessional noises about both in recent years.

  • March 29, 2010, 2:39 p.m. CST

    I can't be bothered with the BR sequel books

    by AsimovLives

    Word is they are not all that good, and i have no reasons to disagree.

  • March 29, 2010, 2:39 p.m. CST

    What if we Baleback this talkback?

    by AsimovLives

    Who's with me? BLADE RUNNER FANS, UNITE!

  • March 29, 2010, 4:56 p.m. CST

    Baleback

    by BixbySnyder

    <p>Hmm. What exactly IS that concept really? Some sort of secret society? Like, Fight Club? Also, i really, really recommend the 97 Videogame.</p> http://tinyurl.com/yasvfzx <p>Give it a try, even if your not familiar or comfortable with 'playing games'.</p> <p>This is not like that. It's not like super mario or a beat-em up. Try to track a copy down. Ebay usually has it.</p>

  • March 29, 2010, 7:28 p.m. CST

    Orcus thinks they actually made it Off Colony in one....

    by orcus

    of the books and were taken aback that it was such a shithole. Haven't read the 4th book yet, it's been close to 10 years since Orcus read the first 3. All Orcus remembers is the 1st one (The Edge of Human) was the best of the bunch since some of the characters carried over, and it addressed some questions that Orcus had from the movie. After that it started going off into tangents and odd angles. Kinda like reading a William Gibson book where it takes half a book to figure out what is going on :)

  • March 29, 2010, 7:51 p.m. CST

    In a perfect world, Scott would make NEUROMANCER...

    by BurnHollywood

    (Thanks for reminding me, Orcus...)<p> Given that ALIEN and BR were instrumental in shaping the cyberpunk literary movement, it's almost like his "right" to adapt the Gibson novel. 3Jane is like Tyrell's deranged bastard descendant, Molly is Priss and Batty's love child, and Case is Deckard with a computer instead of a gun...

  • March 29, 2010, 8:38 p.m. CST

    Hollywood does not read. Period

    by orcus

    If they did they would not cannibalize old movies. Scott would be a good fit though, it's a shame we have no power to suggest this to anyone who would listen. Orcus thinks the last WG book that Orcus picked up was Idoru

  • March 30, 2010, 4:13 a.m. CST

    Neuromancer directed by Ridley Scott

    by ominus

    indeed,that is an awesome idea.but since they have fucked up Johny Mnemonic,nothing stops Holywood to also fuck this up.so its better to leave it alone.

  • March 30, 2010, 7:38 p.m. CST

    What if they did it like Avatar?

    by dailysportspages

    Then you could use the original cast's voices and facial characteristics.

  • March 31, 2010, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Well Harrison Ford does have a son...

    by orcus

    Orcus believed that he did some work in the Snake shop scene where they lined up the dialog with the facial movements of Harrison