|
Post by GRWelsh on Dec 21, 2016 13:22:13 GMT -5
The trailer came out this week: www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDscTTE-P-kThey got the visuals and sound down perfectly. But do they have a good story to tell? One of the funnier comments on Youtube that I saw was: "Ford agreed to this on the sole condition that Ryan shoot him off a catwalk towards the end of the film after the twist that they're father and son." The good news is Ridley Scott is the producer and Hampton Fancher is the screenwriter. The bad news is it looks like the idea of Deckard being a replicant is not going to be dropped. From the Wiki page: When Scott was asked about the possibility of a sequel in October 2012, he said, "It's not a rumor—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. And that's all I'm going to say at this stage."There's only one thing I dislike about the original BLADE RUNNER movie, and that is Deckard being revealed as replicant. It is made more explicit in some cuts than others. Ford wanted Deckard to be human, Fancher preferred ambiguity, and Scott thinks he's a replicant. I believe the original theatrical release did not have the unicorn dream sequence, but that it was restored into the Director's cut, and that is what really makes it explicit that Deckard is a replicant. It think that is a terrible mistake, dramatically. Sure it gives a cute twist to the ending, but if you think about it that undermines the whole thing. Deckard is the viewer's entry point into the Blade Runner world, he's the person we can identify with -- a jaded human being who is desensitized and starts out thinking 'retiring' a replicant is no different than getting rid of a malfunctioning toaster. But he goes through this ordeal, this story arc, where a replicant ends up acting 'more human' than him by saving his life even though he's trying to kill it (thus giving resonance to the "more human than human" line). And then he falls in love and runs away with another replicant, whom by the end of the movie, he has come to see as a 'real' person. That immense worldview shift is not as dramatic if he is just a replicant, too -- and it's not nearly as impactful for two replicants to run off together at the end.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Dec 21, 2016 13:50:50 GMT -5
I remember being disappointed with it because the visuals of the preview made it seem that it was STAR WARS level of ship to ship violence but then it unfolded like a cop film. Second time, I appreciated it more on tape. I have the Marvel comic adaptation somewhere which I did not read until I saw the film then afterwards I just glossed through it. I still haven't read the story by Dick. Alright that didn't come out right. Alright... STOP!
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Dec 21, 2016 14:08:43 GMT -5
In the original story by Philip K. Dick, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep," Deckard does give himself the empathy test and it confirms he's human.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 6, 2017 10:47:18 GMT -5
I'm going to see this tonight. I'm lukewarm about sequels anymore, especially for movies I consider stand-alone classics. But I'm cautiously optimistic for this one, due to the people involved. It sounds like this director is a true fan of the original. I'm trying to avoid the reviews. Here's my prediction: the visuals will be sharper but the story will be blurrier.
I just watched the Final Cut of the original BLADE RUNNER again, and it just re-confirmed for me that it is one of the best movies ever made. It is one of those rare stories in which the 'hero' (Deckard) and the 'villain' (Roy) have equally compelling story arcs. Both become 'enlightened' by the end, each in their own way. There is so much detail and imagery that I think people miss: Roy quotes William Blake, but it is a slight misquote; Roy ascends into 'Heaven' to confront, and then kill, his maker/father, who is the 'god of Biomechanics'; Tyrell's eyes are obscured by his thick glasses, implying a sort of moral blindness on his part, and Roy kills him by crushing his skull and pushing his thumbs into his eyesockets, which I took as a sort of symbolism by Roy; but then also Roy, as his last act, saves the man who is trying to kill him, making him seem like a holy or enlightened figure, 'more human than human' and releasing the dove may imply he does have whatever humans mean when they refer to a 'soul' and it also has the imagery of the Holy Spirit appearing as a dove at the baptism of Jesus; Deckard starts out believing "replicants are like any other machine" but doesn't try to 'retire' Rachel when he first finds out she is a replicant even though replicants are illegal on earth, so his worldview changing begins even before she saves him by shooting Leon; Rachel doubts that she is a real person, but essentially becomes real by expressing her desires and making choices; in the end she and Deckard go off into the wilderness, leaving you to wonder... just how biologically similar to a human is she, as the latest model? Could she and Deckard have a child together? Do they become a new Adam and Eve? And wouldn't that be the ultimate blurring of the line between what is human and what is not?
I am wondering if Officer K in the new movie is their child. I sort of hope not, but I'm suspecting that may be the case.
|
|
|
Post by geneweigel on Oct 6, 2017 11:18:22 GMT -5
Honestly? In general, the original BLADERUNNER had that "Aw crap this aint't Han Solo" feel since "Indiana" made it seem "STAR WARS could be in everything" but looking back it seems so much better once you're over the STAR WARS mystique.
Specific memories: I remembering buying the movie magazine comic adaptation then holding off reading it until I saw the picture. Then coming out of the theater thinking that I should have read it first. My brother rubbing it in that I wasn't going to be picking movies to see ever again. For years, I associated the family reaction with the film and subtly wanted the memory of watching BLADERUNNER to disappear. Its so contradictory to how I felt upon watching it again in the late 80's because someone was defending it to me.
Once Ford had a lot of stinkers under his belt I really started appreciating BLADERUNNER for what it was.
I want to see it but tonight I'm with the kids. Then have to go to comic con tomorrow and I don't want to. (I'm being force marched as chaperone for the girls so they can see "Rick". My oldest saw him last year and its been gnawing jealousy for the other.) Then I tag out on Sunday and its my turn to watch Mr Incompatible-With-Movie-Theaters all day so unfortunately I'm going to have to wait.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 6, 2017 13:25:43 GMT -5
If I'd seen the original in the theater in 1982 I'm sure I would have been confused and disappointed. And I think most people who saw it upon release didn't get it. I just watched the Siskel and Ebert review from the time and neither of them liked it, and you can tell they just didn't understand it. An uncle of mine, to his credit, understood it and really liked it when he first saw it, and told me I needed to see it. I first saw it on cable sometime in the mid-80's. But I didn't really love it until re-watching it around 1988, and then it all clicked for me.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Oct 6, 2017 17:47:34 GMT -5
At theater now to see it - cannot wait!
|
|
|
Post by Scott on Oct 7, 2017 10:25:55 GMT -5
You pegged it, Gene. I went to see that at the theater as a kid expecting some cool Star Wars/Han Solo action. I didn't get it. It was a long time before I decided to watch it again, and really appreciated it.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 7, 2017 14:03:48 GMT -5
Too early to post spoilers yet, so I'll just say I liked it and I think it is worth seeing. It is an excellent sequel, and better than most sequels. I like it more the more I think about it. It does what decent sequels should do, which is to expand on the original and introduce the new, not just repeat the old. But still, it is not as good as the original for two main reasons: no antagonist is as compelling as Roy Batty was, and the motivations of some of the characters are unclear. In regards to the latter -- I need to see it again, and pay attention to the dialogue and details to see what I may have missed.
|
|
|
Post by davegibsongreyhawkdm on Oct 7, 2017 15:14:47 GMT -5
I liked it also, and there is character with similarity to Roy Batty. I knew I would have to follow it closely dialogue, actions, and emotional content - which I did and it was very good, especially for a sequel to an incredible movie.
|
|
|
Post by grodog on Oct 8, 2017 21:43:23 GMT -5
I liked it, and it makes me want to go dig up my pre-Final Cut VHS tape (if I still have it), to compare to Final Cut to the original release.
Hans Zimmmer's music was excellent (and I've got had the full Vangelis soundtrack for a long time, too).
I'd definitely be willing to see it in-theatre a second time, which is pretty rare these days.
Allan.
|
|
|
Post by GRWelsh on Oct 9, 2017 13:00:58 GMT -5
Yeah, I noticed how the Hans Zimmer and Benjamin Wallfisch soundtrack has many Vangelis echoes throughout, yet also has an original retro-future sound ("this is what we thought the future would sound like, in the 80's" -- made me think of the Daft Punk TRON LEGACY soundtrack, which I also love). I'm still processing the whole experience. I have to see this again. I'm with you, Allan, there are very few movies I go to see in the theater a second time, nowadays, but this is one of them.
|
|