Tweet
I am hoping that this will just be a tale from the same universe, with little relation to the original story. Maybe the tale of a different blade runner, years later, or earlier. I always thought the open ends were best pondered upon. If they answer the big question "IS he a replicant" it will be like shattering a snow globe, all the fun taken out of a brilliant film.
-
-
I'd agree with all of your points on original theme - I always considered the phrase "more human than human" to be the underlying question. Roy at the end asserts a kind of, if not a new moral superiority, then perhaps at least a higher respect for life in all forms (unless the death serves a purpose like protecting their whereabouts, or is a spontaneous reaction of rage like with Tyrell). His speech is all about the fullness of life he experienced in his short time. In Ford's reaction shot you can't help but reflect that he's not really living, just buying his noodles and making awkward attempts at connection in a fumbling, emotionally solitary way.
I think the story is more interesting with deck as a replicant, because he gets to question the validity of his social assumptions and stagnation in a more personal way, a District 9 situation if you will, which he might not with just Rachel.
Gaff is interesting because if he himself is a rep and knows that's the system, why does he persist, is he party to some co-conspiracy? If he's human, or thinks of himself as human, and knows or thinks that deck is replicant, it makes him hugely sympathetic... because here he is making a decision of moral conscience and bravery to let them go. Was the origami a warning to not come back? Would another deck be popped from a mold, Moon style?
I think any of that could be a possible springboard to question the nature of self, and legitimacy of life form... How would a character like Decker reimagine himself after learning any of that? If self is built from the collected narrative of what has happened to you, and is essentially a story of constant self-invention - what would he choose to become? Or, given that Ford is out, how would a new character upset that system? What would he learn and what moral choice would he make from it?
Totally valid, I don't need everything exposed. In fact I think one of the great themes in the original was that in the end, did it even matter?
I think one of Ridley's strengths was taking one genre and telling a different story in it. Alien is a haunted house story... Bladerunner, at it's core is very nearly Project X with talking chimps (or Rise of POTA if you will). That it exists on a fine line of social contract and relative ambiguity is what I liked about it.
Ok, so maybe "Lost in Translation of the Rise of the Planet of the Apes" is a better film squash.Last edited by Tothiro; Aug 19, '11, 1:44 PM.Comment
-
Ya know, that would be GREAT casting! I could totally get on board with Crowe as a Blade Runner.
And I don't care what Scott says about the original...I WANT the narration DAMMIT! It makes the movie. It combines Si-Fi with 40's detective Gum-Shoe "film Noir"...I love it!
And one more thing...Deckard was NOT a Replicant!
In the book Deckard was NOT a Replicant. Admittedly...the book SUCKED! I HATED it! So I have to give Ridley & Scott Free a lot of credit for turn that book into a really AWESOME movie.
sigpicComment
-
Makes sense. A movie about replicants replicates it self.
Seriously I am sick and tired of reboots and “re-imaginings.”
You realize you are saying what everyone said when George Lucas announced the Star Wars prequels?
Ridley Scott was a great director, but his modern output is crap. This is just a cash-in; won’t be good.Last edited by MicromanZone; Aug 19, '11, 5:31 PM.Comment
-
OK Hector, no one, and I mean NO ONE is beyond question. Not Ridley Scott, not Kubrick, nobody.
Original Blade Runner, 1982, is not the Blade Runner that has stood the test of time. There have been many revised cuts over the years with different editing and changes to the film. Tho some would argue the original was great-it's the altered versions which have garnered the film respect. If one of these "director's cut" versions had been released in theaters in 1982 instead; things might be different. Also from that time period people paid more attention to reviews. Today Rex Reed can now be kicked into the curb-who needs him? There are more level-headed and honest reviewers online.
Also George Lucas these days has earned the level of disrespect that Dino DeLaurentis once had as a film producer. This was not always so. Some of Lucas' non-Star Wars output was well received and showed he was a promising film-maker who knew how to entertain. Admittedly there isn't much to suggest he would ever tackle serious topics or serious films as Ridley Scott, Martin Scorsese or even his peer, Spielberg has. The guy has just lost his way is all. He may never recover but things were different once.Last edited by johnmiic; Aug 19, '11, 11:37 PM.Comment
-
BTW...good post though, John...agreed.sigpicComment
-
In general no creator is beyond reproach. The second you put someone on a pedestal you get something like what Lucas has become. It’s not like these guys will read these comments, cry, and stop creating whatever they are creating. Lack of criticism is what creates egomaniacal dreck.
Even moreso with Ridley Scott; sorry but even his most entertaining modern output is dreck compared to the classics he created. And heck, look at Gene Roddenberry! I respect what he did to create Star Trek, but he was responsible for that dreck known as Star Trek: The Motion Picture and the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation. The second he was kicked aside we got Wrath of Khan and the rest of Star Trek: The Next Generation which is really good in comparison.Comment
-
sigpicComment
Comment