Blade Runner 2049

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
The original version is ambiguous, but the subsequent cuts by Ridley Scott don't leave very much room for other interpretation than that he is, in fact, a replicant.


Interestingly enough, in Philip K. Dick's original novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Deckard is never represented as anything but a human. This is also the case with Jeter's literary sequels (there's also 4: Eye and Talon) for the movie. But if we consider the Final Cut to be the definitive version as indicated by Scott... there's not really a 'canon answer' to be found here.

Thanks for all that info, Finn.

I remember from the Director's Cut that Deckard's unicorn dream and the silver foil unicorn were indications that he may have had implanted 'memories'.

So, if Ridley is doing another Blade Runner, then Jeter's books may not be his preferred direction.
 

kongisking

Active member
Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human makes an interesting theory that most or all of the Blade Runners are acually replicants, specially made to hunt down their own kind when they go bad. They all get false memories and such. I, for one, think that this would be a plot thread worthy of a cinematic sequel.
 

Joe Brody

Well-known member
Finn said:
The original version is ambiguous, but the subsequent cuts by Ridley Scott don't leave very much room for other interpretation than that he is, in fact, a replicant.

[Cynically]He just said that to drive DVD sales.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
I watched The Final Cut, and am rewatching it with Ridley's commentary on. He actually comes out says that the unicorn is an implanted memory, and "...would say to those who have been paying attention that Deckard is a replicant."

At the end he says that Deckard and Rachael may both be Nexus 8 Replicants, which means that they would live normal length lives.

Another thing he said which I thought was interesting, was that he envisioned the world as depicted in Blade Runner to be the same earth that the crew of Alien would have left.
 

Chewbacca Jones

New member
Finn said:
Interestingly enough, in Philip K. Dick's original novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Deckard is never represented as anything but a human.

Actually, Dick's novel plants a seed of doubt, though Dick himself did not intend Deckard to be a replicant, if my memory is right. The book was supposed to leave you wondering just a little.

Jeter's BR2 was a pretty good story, and would hand Holden something to do other than get shot. However, I would rather see Ford return in a Jeter-inspired sequel, taking place many years later. And Eddie Olmos as Captain Gaff!
 

Goonie

New member
Montana Smith said:
Another thing he said which I thought was interesting, was that he envisioned the world as depicted in Blade Runner to be the same earth that the crew of Alien would have left.

So I wonder if this is something we can expect in his Alien prequel if it gets made.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Goonie said:
So I wonder if this is something we can expect in his Alien prequel if it gets made.

It wasn't something that had occurred to me before - that in Blade Runner Ridley was creating a homeworld for the characters in Alien.

Chonronologically, Blade Runner takes place in 2019, and Alien in 2122, but the technology is the same retro-future style of boxy monitors and TVs. So, I wonder if the new Blade Runner and the new Alien prequel will continue the retro theme.

As an edit to my post above about Ridley's commentary on The Final Cut, he later mentions Deckard and Rachael as possibly being "Nexus 7", so his earlier "Nexus 8" comment was a numerical mistake.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Chewbacca Jones said:
Actually, Dick's novel plants a seed of doubt, though Dick himself did not intend Deckard to be a replicant, if my memory is right. The book was supposed to leave you wondering just a little.
I never got an impression of a doubt but simply one of a subtle metaphor. It's simply meant to arise the question "what is human?". Of course, the movie does this too, with the level of subtlety depending on the cut.

I don't know which cut I'd prefer, though. The Final Cut is nice for little added extra coherence, but the original has its ambiguity, which is a redeeming quality in my eyes. Spelling it out certainly robs a whole bunch from the magic.

Montana Smith said:
Chonronologically, Blade Runner takes place in 2019, and Alien in 2122, but the technology is the same retro-future style of boxy monitors and TVs. So, I wonder if the new Blade Runner and the new Alien prequel will continue the retro theme.
It's amazing really, how actual technological development has managed to surpass the human imagination in just two decades. Of course, we have nothing that even closely relates to an Esper or hovercars, but still in a way the world we live in now is a lot more futuristic than anything they were able to come up with such a short time ago.

And sometimes it's there to serve us a jarring discrepancy, when the in-world tech simply looks degraded in the instances that should be taking place chronologically later. Yes, I'm looking at you, Uncle George.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
Finn said:
It's amazing really, how actual technological development has managed to surpass the human imagination in just two decades. Of course, we have nothing that even closely relates to an Esper or hovercars, but still in a way the world we live in now is a lot more futuristic than anything they were able to come up with such a short time ago.

And sometimes it's there to serve us a jarring discrepancy, when the in-world tech simply looks degraded in the instances that should be taking place chronologically later. Yes, I'm looking at you, Uncle George.

Ridley makes a comment on this subject when Deckard uses the telephone in the bar. He said that even if he made the film today he wouldn't have made it a holographic image telephone, as he believes that would go beyond mere functionality into something gimmicky.

The one thing that he keeps mentioning is that Orwell's 1984 was a big influence, and that even if Deckard wasn't a Replicant, he was still just a machine within a greater machine.

Something I just learnt, was that the term Blade Runner has a connection to William S. Burroughs (of Naked Lunch and Junky fame), a writer I've found fascinating for many years:

Wikipedia said:
The Bladerunner

The novel The Bladerunner (also published as The Blade Runner) is a 1974 science fiction novel by Alan E. Nourse.

Plot

The novel's protagonist is Billy Gimp, a man with a club foot who runs "blades" for Doc (Doctor John Long) as part of an illegal black market for medical services. The setting is a society where free, comprehensive medical treatment is available for anyone so long as they qualify for treatment under the Eugenics Laws. Preconditions for medical care include sterilization, and no legitimate medical care is available for anyone who does not qualify or does not wish to undergo the sterilization procedure (including children over the age of five). These conditions have created illegal medical services in which bladerunners supply black market medical supplies for underground practitioners, who generally go out at night to see patients and perform surgery. As an epidemic breaks out among the underclass, Billy must save the city from the plague hitting the rest of the city as well.

Connection to the film Blade Runner

The book is a version of a common science-fiction plot, which suggested the title of the 1982 science-fiction film Blade Runner (which was otherwise unrelated beyond the common element of dystopian futures). Both of the earlier works use the term "bladerunner" to describe black market suppliers of items needed for medical care.

In 1979 William S. Burroughs was commissioned to write a story treatment for a possible film adaptation. This treatment was published as the novella Blade Runner (a movie). Burroughs acknowledged the Nourse novel as a source, and prominently set a mutated virus and right-wing politics in the year 1999.

No film was produced from it, but Hampton Fancher, a screenwriter for the 1982 film (based on science fiction author Philip K. Dick's 1968 novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?), had a copy, and it suggested the title Blade Runner as one more tantalizing than the successive earlier working titles, "Android" and "Dangerous Days". Within the film, the phrase appears as an informal term for the personnel of the police "Rep-Detect" division, i.e. those whose duties are to track down and destroy escaped "replicants," or androids.

Ridley Scott bought any rights to the title "Blade Runner" that might have arisen from either the Nourse novel or the Burroughs story treatment.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
I haven't heard any new Blade Runner news, but I learned some more old news about the original.

I've started watching the Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner film.

Hampton Francher, the first screen writer, had Robert Mitchum in mind to play Deckard. Francher was later replaced by David Peoples due to disagreements with Ridley over changes to the script. Then Dustin Hoffman was seriously considered for the role, and some of the storyboards bear Dustin's image.

Harrison Ford came to Ridley's mind, due to his work in Raiders of the Lost Ark, though the fact that Harrison wore a fedora as Indy, annoyed Ridley since he wanted that look for Deckard, to tie into the film noir theme.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Rumor:
Twitch has learned that Harrison Ford has entered into early talks to join the new Blade Runner. While this is still very early stages and it is quite possible that things won't work out the obvious implication is that what we are looking at is not a reboot but a direct sequel to the original.
Denied:
"It is absolutely patently false that there has been any discussion about Harrison Ford being in Blade Runner."

"What Ridley does in Prometheus is a good template for what we’re trying to do. He created something that has some association to the original Alien, but lives on its own as a standalone movie." Asked point blank if Ford could resurface, Kosove said: "In advance of knowing what we’re going to do, I supposed you could say yes, he could. But I think it is quite unlikely."
 
Last edited:

Montana Smith

Active member
It would be safe to assume, looking at Harrison, that Deckard outlived Rachael no matter what cut this one followed.

I suppose there's no reason why he couldn't appear as a retired version of himself, but it may look like a shoe horn if Ridley's Prometheus-style intentions are true.
 

Dr. Gonzo

New member
Harrison had a hell of a time making Blade Runner anyway (meaning one of the worst acting experiences he ever had.) It was hell on him... it would take a hell of a lot to get him in a movie like this again with Ridley. I don't think Harry would do it.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Montana Smith said:
It would be safe to assume, looking at Harrison, that Deckard outlived Rachael no matter what cut this one followed.
Those were my first thoughts as well.

Unless, of course, it's a prequel and he's playing the original.
 

phantom train

New member
The original '82 Blade Runner is an iconic sci-fi classic, and works perfectly as a stand-alone film. There is no reason why this should have a sequel.
 

Montana Smith

Active member
phantom train said:
The original '82 Blade Runner is an iconic sci-fi classic, and works perfectly as a stand-alone film. There is no reason why this should have a sequel.

It does stand very well alone, but for those who want more K. W. Jeter wrote three sequels. I don't know if anything from them could feature in Ridley's new vision as I still haven't gotten round to reading them.
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Ridley Scott on Ford: "I'm not sure that that's going to be a story point, so I don't know. But if it were, nothing would please me more. Honestly."
 

Moedred

Administrator
Staff member
Ridley Scott: "It’s not a rumour – it’s happening. With Harrison Ford? I don’t know yet. Is he too old? Well, he was a Nexus-6 so we don’t know how long he can live [laughs]. And that’s all I’m going to say at this stage."
 
Bladerunner2 CONFIRMED!

Harrison Ford is in current discussion with Ridley Scott regarding a sequel to the '82 sci-fi yarn that is considered, by most, as Fords finest hour, and arguably science fiction fandoms all time greatest film. Who can argue that?

The soundbyte was heard less than 20 minutes ago, by myself, on Londons LBC radio, which is celebrating 40 years of air time - and the good news has been validated by Mr. H himself, as he was promoting his latest effort Enders Game.

I am so excited by this I just cancelled Christmas for the next 1000 years, and logged in just to share the news with the Raven community. More excited about this than the Star Wars sequel.

Yes! YES!! and F*ckin' YES!!!

Get this one on. This is the movie I have been waiting for since KOCS - before and beyond!
 

Spurlock

New member
So I assume you didn't see Prometheus?

I don't really if this is good or bad news, judging on Hollywood's track record with sequels to old franchises, this can go either way. On one hand, it could leave a bad taste in everyone's mouth and bring down the acclaim of Blade Runner, or it could loved by some and hated by others, leaving the internet in ruin. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO OPTIONS. There is no scenario in which it is fantastic and everyone loves it, or where everyone accepts it at okay.

That being said, I wish Ford was doing IJ5 instead of Bladerunner 2. But good to see he's still wants to act in roles like this.
 
Top