Ridley Scott Commits to New Blade Runner Film

[Lukeje]

As long as they don't ruin the ambiguity of whether

Spoiler: Is there really anyone that hasn't seen this film yet?

Deckard is a replicant or not

I don't care.

Spoiler

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/825641.stm

Open and shut case, Johnson. 'course, I could have told you that just from watching the film.

Gaff knows... Gaff knows...

It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?

Philip K. Dick says differently. And both the film and the book remain ambiguous. I know that Scott has a very specific opinion, which is why I made the statement in the first place.

 

[Sir Shockwave]

To be honest, this is actually a GOOD thing. Blade Runner to me is what Monsters is to MovieBob - it's a film that's trying to be atmospheric, but somewhat falls flat on it's face. Now I know the majority of people after I say this will have my head, but...I was BORED by the original Blade Runner. Saying that makes me sound like the kind of Douche who's waiting for the next Fast and the Furious film, I know...but I was just not able to engage myself with the film properly. It remains the only film I haven't sat though all the way though to the end - and I've sat though some shit films (e.g: All three Transformers films, Rebuild of Evangellion, Pandorum).

This is personally why I feel a remake is a good thing - Mr Scott has a chance to take some of the things I didn't like about the film (e.g: poor pacing), and improve or rework them. Having said that, I don't feel the themes and subject matter of the original Blade Runner should be sacrificed to get there.

 

[Zeh Don]

Regardless of the enjoyment of any one individual, it would be hard for anyone to say that Blade Runner wasn't a massive influence in Cinema. For me, these are the movies that shouldn't be remade; why remake something that is already as good as its going to get?

Blade Runner is a cult classic, however I can see both sides of the coin here. It is slow. It is thoughtful. It can be boring. It can also be very deep. Its simply not a Sci-Fi movie for everyone, which is why it originally tanked at the box office. Blade Runner is a film you come to appreciate; its not Star Wars.

Making a prequel/sequel forces the movie-makers to answer some of the most interesting questions the film asks - and the movie is terrific because it doesn't answer those questions.
This would be akin to answering "What is the Force?" with "midichlorians". Sometimes, it best just to let your imagination do its job.
Remaking the film is pointless, as the only thing that will be changed is adding shoot outs and casting Keanu Reeves as the main character, both of which will devolve the entire movie.

The only interesting way this can move forward is its a side story, or companion piece. Another film in the 'Blade Runner' universe that asks its own thoughtful questions about humanity and the nature of our creations.
I could sit through that movie. But Hollywood won't make that movie. They'll make 'Transformers 4: Blade Runner'.

 

[The Shade]

Philip K. Dick says differently. And both the film and the book remain ambiguous. I know that Scott has a very specific opinion, which is why I made the statement in the first place.

Well, are we talking about the book? Or about the film? I'd say it's pretty clear Deckard is NOT a replicant in the book, whereas the overwhelming clues in Blade Runner confirm that he is a replicant in the movie.

Just because the book has a different take on it doesn't make the movie's version wrong.

 

[Lukeje]

Philip K. Dick says differently. And both the film and the book remain ambiguous. I know that Scott has a very specific opinion, which is why I made the statement in the first place.

Well, are we talking about the book? Or about the film? I'd say it's pretty clear Deckard is NOT a replicant in the book, whereas the overwhelming clues in Blade Runner confirm that he is a replicant in the movie.

Just because the book has a different take on it doesn't make the movie's version wrong.

From the article you linked:

But a decade later the Director's Cut edition - although deliberately ambiguous - convinced many that the hero was...

The movie (even the Director's Cut) remains ambiguous. I am not saying the film is wrong, because it does not make a statement about the truth or falsity of the claim. I am hoping that the new film retains the mystique, otherwise it ruins some of the moral questions raised by the original book.

 

[The Shade]

The movie (even the Director's Cut) remains ambiguous.

Ah, but was the Final Cut? Or any of the other five cuts, for that matter?

Maybe that's the problem. Ridley just doesn't know when to stop making cuts. Might explain why his director cuts are always four hours long.

 

[Lukeje]

The movie (even the Director's Cut) remains ambiguous.

Ah, but was the Final Cut? Or any of the other five cuts, for that matter?

Maybe that's the problem. Ridley just doesn't know when to stop making cuts. Might explain why his director cuts are always four hours long.

Hah! I really can't remember. Hell, I can't even remember which cut I watched. I think the ambiguity must have been kept (at least to an extent) though. It's part of what makes the film interesting.

 

[CrashBang]

Lucas raped Indiana Jones so why should we be shocked that Scott is gonna rape Deckard? It's just what old directors do nowadays.

Not to be facetious, but it was Spielberg who directed Indiana Jones 4. And I honestly cannot understand what everyone finds so objectionable about that film. Sure, Shia Lebeouf got a little annoying, but he's hardly a shit enough actor to sink an entire film.

You're right, he didn't sink it. What sank it was the scene with the fridge, the aliens at the end and the monkeys and ants who spontaneously and magically had enough intelligence to work together to help them out during the jungle car chase. That scene haunts my very soul.

 

[Vortigar]

As a fan of the Blade Runner film I think this is a bad idea. The landscape has changed too much for something similar to work. Simply upping the special effects and keeping a similar premise is a no go.

As a fan of the work of Philip K Dick I think it's awesome another film based on his work is in the making. The man is way underappreciated. I'd love to see one of his non-sci-fi books in film, Confessions of a Crap Artist for example.

Saw Paycheck last evening, strangely coincidental...

I'll have to see which direction he wants to take this project. In any case I'd want to see a movie with a title other than BladeRunner2.

Ah, but was the Final Cut? Or any of the other five cuts, for that matter?

Maybe that's the problem. Ridley just doesn't know when to stop making cuts. Might explain why his director cuts are always four hours long.

Hah! I really can't remember. Hell, I can't even remember which cut I watched. I think the ambiguity must have been kept (at least to an extent) though. It's part of what makes the film interesting.

It's ambiguous in every cut. I made a point of seeing the three major ones when Final Cut came out. Ie. Theatrical (the one with the voice overs), Director's and Final (which fixes the problems of the Director's cut).

 

[Lionsfan]

As long as they don't ruin the ambiguity of whether

Spoiler: Is there really anyone that hasn't seen this film yet?

Deckard is a replicant or not

I don't care.

Spoiler

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/825641.stm

Open and shut case, Johnson. 'course, I could have told you that just from watching the film.

Gaff knows... Gaff knows...

It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?

Well it's not that open and shut case. If Ridley really wanted to say he was a Replicant he could have made a stronger case than "I say its this way". I mean the only evidence suggesting he was, is one scene where he dreams of a Unicorn, and later he finds a Origami Unicorn. If that is the end all be all to it, then I understand why people disagree with Ridley

 

[weirdee]

Eh, the problem with the whole thing was that the original Blade Runner was mired in so many issues that it failed commercially. Despite it being some kind of hallmark standard here, people seem to forget how badly it fared from the start.

 

[putowtin]

Come now Mr Scott, you don't need the money so why? WHY?

 

[Zer_]

You're right, he didn't sink it. What sank it was the scene with the fridge, the aliens at the end and the monkeys and ants who spontaneously and magically had enough intelligence to work together to help them out during the jungle car chase. That scene haunts my very soul.

Because it's not like previous Indiana Jones films had scenes of

- Indiana Jones riding a submarine halfway across the atlantic
- mine carts completely ignoring the laws of physics by jumping 50 foot railway gaps, only to carry on with all the momentum of a V8 engine
- Indiana Jones and friends falling hundreds of feet out of an airplane in an inflatable raft, landing on the side of a mountain, then falling off a a cliff into a river hundreds of feet below, miraculously not falling out at any point, with no injuries to speak of
- People getting their hearts magically ripped out of their chests while still conscious

If you're going to lambast one Indy film for playing loose with the rules of science, then you should at least apply the same standards to all the others. Indiana Jones has never tried to present itself as a realistic action film, and lambasting it for failing something it never tried to achieve is completely missing the point. Realistically, Indiana Jones should have died in that fridge, but then again, realistically he'd have been dead decades before he was able to get into that fridge in the first place.

Regarding the aliens, perhaps you should read a little into the history of what Indiana Jones has always been trying to emulate. George Lucas wanted to create films based around the serial adventures from when he was a kid: namely, pulp adventure stories. Indiana Jones is a loveletter to the adventure stories of the thirties and fourties, which is why it's set in that time period. Now, Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull was set in the 1950s. In the Fifties, pulp adventure stories, thanks to Cold War fever, had given way to pulp sci-fi stories instead. Therefore, as Indiana Jones has always reflected the pulp fiction of the era its set in, it's no surprise at all that Crystal Skull included some of the sci-fi elements of the era.

CALIMAAAA!

CAAALIIIMAAAAAA!!!

*rips your heart out*

 

[Sacman]

Oh no... don't do this to one of my favorite films of all time... there wasn't even a sequel to Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?... ok there was but it wasn't written by Philip K. Dick and it was more a sequel written for the movie also it was sort of crap... it was even called Blade Runner 2 disregarding the fact that the movie was based on a book...<.<

 

[BrotherRool]

If it was perfect why did it need so many re-edits?

The best thing about Bladerunner was the unique visuals, so good that they have been copied by every dirty sci-fi movie since, which sadly makes it look a bit cliche when view now.

Everything else was good at best, especially the plot and a little bit the pacing.

But nothing like as ludicrous as the book, which I would accuse of being written poorly if I didn't feel it was somehow deliberate. Non-sequitors and random changes of motion galore with really weird symbolism and anti-climaxes to top it all off