http://gamingtrend.com
October 20, 2014, 10:33:51 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: [movie] Blade Runner prequel or sequel coming?  (Read 2519 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #40 on: November 08, 2011, 06:09:55 AM »

with Scott doing this and Prometheus (the 'prequel' of sorts to Alien),maybe we'll see a pre/sequel to Legend as well  icon_biggrin
Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
kronovan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7929



View Profile
« Reply #41 on: November 08, 2011, 06:51:58 AM »

Great news IMO that Scott will be taking the directorial rains for this.  thumbsup   I can't say I agree that Alien and Blade Runner are the only films he directed that are distinctively in his style. I'd certainly add The Duellists, Black Hawk Down and Gladiator to that list. When you consider how many other films like those have been attempted, and almost all have fallen far below what Scott achieved. I also enjoyed his Kingdom of Heaven and American Gangster and doubt many directors could pull off as decent a job.
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9251


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #42 on: November 08, 2011, 03:13:00 PM »

Honestly, I think Scott is an overrated director if I only look at his work over the past decade.  I don't believe there's anything in films like Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood that even a Michael Bay couldn't do.  It's his work on Bladerunner and films earlier than that that I think were just visually and stylistically amazing.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
kronovan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7929



View Profile
« Reply #43 on: November 08, 2011, 05:58:00 PM »

You won't get much disagreement from me about Robin Hood, but Kingdom of Heaven - seriously. That has far too much of story and plot for lotsa-action-little-substance Michael Bay. slywink Scott has some talents that very few directors possess. In particular his storyboarding is considered legendary in film circles and one of the reason he usually gets the most from his cinematographers. Heck he even had the budget for Alien doubled by the Producer on the quality of his storyboards alone! He's also considered a pioneer in the use of some natural, environmental effects. I certainly wouldn't rank him in the top 10 for his generation, but I'd reserve "overated" for countless directors before I pinned it on Scott. I also wouldn't call someone who's been nonminated for as many directorial awards as he has, yet only one a few as overated. But hey,to each their own; he's a top rate director as far as I'm concerned.
Logged
rickfc
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5651


Why so serious?


View Profile
« Reply #44 on: November 08, 2011, 06:27:53 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on November 08, 2011, 03:13:00 PM

Honestly, I think Scott is an overrated director if I only look at his work over the past decade.  I don't believe there's anything in films like Kingdom of Heaven and Robin Hood that even a Michael Bay couldn't do.  It's his work on Bladerunner and films earlier than that that I think were just visually and stylistically amazing.

You are strictly speaking about the last ten years, right? Because there's no way that Michael Bay could pull anything close to resembling Gladiator (2000)

Some people use the term decade loosely...
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9251


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #45 on: November 08, 2011, 06:32:06 PM »

While I like Gladiator, I thought it signaled the decline of Scott.  It still is visually stunning at times (his return to his home dreams, for example) but it doesn't have the vision that his earlier works contained...and again, this is all just my opinion.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
rickfc
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5651


Why so serious?


View Profile
« Reply #46 on: November 08, 2011, 07:08:39 PM »

Quote from: hepcat on November 08, 2011, 06:32:06 PM

While I like Gladiator, I thought it signaled the decline of Scott.  It still is visually stunning at times (his return to his home dreams, for example) but it doesn't have the vision that his earlier works contained...and again, this is all just my opinion.

Well, your opinion is wrong. Tongue
Logged
hepcat
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 9251


I'M the one that knocks! Now...burp me!


View Profile
« Reply #47 on: November 08, 2011, 07:15:35 PM »

It just feels like he sacrificed the intimacy of his earlier work for the grandeur of spectacle once he started up with historical action epics (although I will admit that Kingdom of Heaven seemed more like a return to his earlier style than anything else he's done in quite some time).  Films like Alien and Bladerunner pull you into the world he's created because you can see the detail behind it.  I don't get that same feeling from the films of his later years.
Logged

Warning:  You will see my penis. -Brian

Just remember: once a user figures out gluten noting them they're allowed to make fun of you. - Ceekay speaking in tongues.
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: May 18, 2012, 10:13:19 AM »

more on Blade Runner 2(not much to be honest)
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/05/17/original-blade-runner-writer-on-sequel

Quote
Additionally, it has now been confirmed that the film will in fact be a sequel to the original tale of the Replicant-hunting, down-on-his-luck future cop played by Harrison Ford. "The filmmakers would reveal only that the new story will take place some years after the first film concluded," we're told. So does that mean Ford will be back?

I'll be very surprised if Ford was back,with his age(Do Replicants age?) and the mammoth falling out on the first movie(although Ford and Scott are now friends)...saying that,as said in the other thread Ford does seem to want to make Sci-Fi again so who knows

Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
Soulchilde
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 5234


You and I have unfinished business


View Profile
« Reply #49 on: May 18, 2012, 10:48:24 AM »

Quote from: metallicorphan on May 18, 2012, 10:13:19 AM

more on Blade Runner 2(not much to be honest)
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2012/05/17/original-blade-runner-writer-on-sequel

Quote
Additionally, it has now been confirmed that the film will in fact be a sequel to the original tale of the Replicant-hunting, down-on-his-luck future cop played by Harrison Ford. "The filmmakers would reveal only that the new story will take place some years after the first film concluded," we're told. So does that mean Ford will be back?

I'll be very surprised if Ford was back,with his age(Do Replicants age?) and the mammoth falling out on the first movie(although Ford and Scott are now friends)...saying that,as said in the other thread Ford does seem to want to make Sci-Fi again so who knows




Is he a Replicant?  icon_twisted


-
Logged

Quote from: Devil on January 12, 2007, 01:14:38 AM

NiM$
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: May 18, 2012, 12:14:37 PM »

 Tongue..Hmm,yeah i suppose it never was confirmed was it,especially in the first few cuts of the movie

That kind of thing is usually left to the viewer to decide and argue over,its the 'Philip K Dick mindfuck®',Just like in Total Recall,did everything that happen in Total Recall happen or was it all apart of what he asked for at Recall(Blue Sky On Mars etc)

so,yeah a sequel WITH Deckard would spoil that experience from the first film(again,later cuts),whether it was Ford again or not,surely they would not ignore the Elephant in the Room with that character in the sequel and not say anything about it at all

Maybe they should just leave Deckard out of it,unless,they don't address it,but leave subtle clues like the first film and again make the viewer decide,but wouldn't that just be a case of all the evidence stacking up against him?

It certainly makes interesting conversation icon_biggrin
Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: May 18, 2012, 06:16:35 PM »

Ridley Scott promises a Female Protagonist


well like Ripley and Thelma and Louise,now Blade Runner 2

Quote
Funny enough, I started my first meetings on the Blade Runner sequel last week. We have a very good take on it. And we’ll definitely be featuring a female protagonist.
Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #52 on: May 31, 2013, 09:03:12 PM »

http://variety.com/2013/film/news/blade-runner-sequel-1200490621/

Quote
A sequel to Ridley Scott’s “Blade Runner” is gaining momentum, with Michael Green in talks to rewrite the script from Hampton Fancher, who wrote the screenplay for the 1982 original.

Alcon Entertainment has been working on the project for over two years, since announcing in early 2011 that it had secured film, TV and ancillary franchise rights to produce prequels and sequels to the iconic thriller. In August 2011, Scott committed to direct.

Alcon has noted that Scott and his “Blade Runner” collaborator Fancher originally conceived of “Blade Runner” as the first in a series of films incorporating the themes and characters featured in Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?,” from which “Blade Runner” was adapted.

Fancher’s original story/screenplay is set several years after the first film concluded in a dystopian version of Los Angeles.

Alcon co-toppers Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove will produce, with Bud Yorkin and Cynthia Sikes Yorkin, along with  Scott. Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble of Thunderbird Films are executive producers.

Green recently completed rewrites on “Robopocalypse” and Warners Bros. “Gods and Kings.” He also wrote the screenplay for Warner’s “The Green Lantern”; TV credits include “Heroes,” “The River,” “Kings” and “Everwood.”

In the original film, Rutger Hauer played the leader of a group of escaped “replicants” — genetically engineered androids used for work on Earth’s off-world colonies — who are hiding out in 2019 Los Angeles. Harrison Ford’s character is a “blade runner,” a police officer who kills replicants when necessary.

The film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry in 1993.

Alcon fully finances its films and has an output deal with Warner Bros., which distributed the original “Blade Runner.”

“Blade Runner” was the first of  Dick’s works to be adapted into a film by Hollywood, setting the stage for “Total Recall,” “A Scanner Darkly,” “Minority Report,” “Paycheck” and “The Adjustment Bureau.”
Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #53 on: May 31, 2013, 09:46:25 PM »

they should do a concurrent story instead of a prequel or a sequel-  they can insert shots from the original into it and shape the story like they did with the first Godfather video game biggrin
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: October 10, 2013, 03:32:07 PM »

Harrison Ford Confirms Blade Runner 2 Discussions


Quote
Ever since Ridley Scott confirmed that he was planning a second Blade Runner movie, speculation has been rife that Harrison Ford would be involved in it. But would he be? It's no secret that Ford and Scott didn't exactly see eye to eye over Blade Runner, and for a while it was looking likely that if the project happened, it'd happen without any Harrison Ford involvement at all.

But the most recent update? Conversations appear to be happening. Ford told IGN that "yeah, we've been chatting about [Blade Runner 2]. I truly admire Ridley as a man and as a director. I would be very happy to engage again with him in the future". That's short, sweet and to the point.
Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: October 10, 2013, 05:29:08 PM »

that would be cool.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
farley2k
Moderator
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 3268



View Profile
« Reply #56 on: October 10, 2013, 07:03:51 PM »

I liked a lot of Harrison Ford's work but he really needs to let it go.  Back for Indian Jones, back for Star Wars, now back for Blade Runner?  Why doesn't he revive American Graffiti?  He can do new stuff like the new Ender's Game.  Why not stick with roles like that rather than trying to shoe-horn in a much much older version of a character we liked 30 years ago?  It just doesn't work.
Logged

Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15614


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #57 on: October 10, 2013, 08:20:10 PM »

Quote from: farley2k on October 10, 2013, 07:03:51 PM

I liked a lot of Harrison Ford's work but he really needs to let it go.  Back for Indian Jones, back for Star Wars, now back for Blade Runner?  Why doesn't he revive American Graffiti?  He can do new stuff like the new Ender's Game.  Why not stick with roles like that rather than trying to shoe-horn in a much much older version of a character we liked 30 years ago?  It just doesn't work.

While I certainly agree with you about Indy, Abrams could bring out something we haven't seen from Ford in a long time.  Regardless, it's too early to tell on that.  With Blade Runner, though, the aged, grizzled detective is a staple of the noir genre, so I think it could fit really well.  Of course, it'll open up that whole replicant/not-a-replicant can of worms and likely destroy one side's argument.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6613


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: October 10, 2013, 08:45:03 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 10, 2013, 08:20:10 PM

Quote from: farley2k on October 10, 2013, 07:03:51 PM

I liked a lot of Harrison Ford's work but he really needs to let it go.  Back for Indian Jones, back for Star Wars, now back for Blade Runner?  Why doesn't he revive American Graffiti?  He can do new stuff like the new Ender's Game.  Why not stick with roles like that rather than trying to shoe-horn in a much much older version of a character we liked 30 years ago?  It just doesn't work.

While I certainly agree with you about Indy, Abrams could bring out something we haven't seen from Ford in a long time.  Regardless, it's too early to tell on that.  With Blade Runner, though, the aged, grizzled detective is a staple of the noir genre, so I think it could fit really well.  Of course, it'll open up that whole replicant/not-a-replicant can of worms and likely destroy one side's argument.

Technically, one side had its arguments shattered years ago (in 2007 to be exact). Ridley Scott has said, in no uncertain terms, that Deckard was a replicant. He went so far as to imply that you'd have to be daft to think otherwise. Some other people involved in the film disagree, and the original story was different, but Scott is the biggest authority when it comes to his film.
Logged
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #59 on: October 11, 2013, 11:37:05 AM »

Well Ridley would know.
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15614


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #60 on: October 11, 2013, 12:33:25 PM »

Of course, Ridley also gave us Prometheus, so his credibility is a little shot.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6613


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #61 on: October 11, 2013, 12:38:51 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 11, 2013, 12:33:25 PM

Of course, Ridley also gave us Prometheus, so his credibility is a little shot.

How does that hurt his credibility? Don't mix concepts now.
Logged
Jumangi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1798



View Profile
« Reply #62 on: October 11, 2013, 02:44:42 PM »

If Deckard was a Replicant then why did he get his ass kicked over and over by the other ones? Better not try and pass it off as well he didn't know he was one cause that's a lame reason.
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15614


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #63 on: October 11, 2013, 02:47:36 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on October 11, 2013, 12:38:51 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 11, 2013, 12:33:25 PM

Of course, Ridley also gave us Prometheus, so his credibility is a little shot.

How does that hurt his credibility? Don't mix concepts now.

In the sense that it shows a clear lack of understanding of what the previous film was about.  A lot of that blame can be put on Damon Lindelof, but it's not just the navigator who gets taken to task when the ship runs aground.  The man at the helm is at fault, too.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6613


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #64 on: October 11, 2013, 03:03:45 PM »

Quote from: Jumangi on October 11, 2013, 02:44:42 PM

If Deckard was a Replicant then why did he get his ass kicked over and over by the other ones? Better not try and pass it off as well he didn't know he was one cause that's a lame reason.

This isn't an argument about the technicalities of why Deckard is or isn't a replicant. It's about Ridley Scott saying, loud and clear, that he is. You may argue the point and even disagree (interpretations are fine, but they are your interpretations), but the director's word is as official as it gets.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 11, 2013, 02:47:36 PM

Quote from: TiLT on October 11, 2013, 12:38:51 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 11, 2013, 12:33:25 PM

Of course, Ridley also gave us Prometheus, so his credibility is a little shot.

How does that hurt his credibility? Don't mix concepts now.

In the sense that it shows a clear lack of understanding of what the previous film was about.  A lot of that blame can be put on Damon Lindelof, but it's not just the navigator who gets taken to task when the ship runs aground.  The man at the helm is at fault, too.

What previous film? Alien? Prometheus isn't trying to replicate what Alien "is about". It's a separate franchise trying to do its own, separate thing. For most people it didn't do its own thing as well as Alien did its own thing, but that's irrelevant to a discussion about Blade Runner. Ridley Scott says Deckard is a replicant, so Deckard is a replicant. If you prefer the movie with Deckard being human, then you're free to interpret it that way. The official word will always, always trump your interpretation when it comes to a public discussion about it though, director's "credibility" be damned.
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15614


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #65 on: October 11, 2013, 04:30:51 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on October 11, 2013, 03:03:45 PM

Quote from: Jumangi on October 11, 2013, 02:44:42 PM

If Deckard was a Replicant then why did he get his ass kicked over and over by the other ones? Better not try and pass it off as well he didn't know he was one cause that's a lame reason.

This isn't an argument about the technicalities of why Deckard is or isn't a replicant. It's about Ridley Scott saying, loud and clear, that he is. You may argue the point and even disagree (interpretations are fine, but they are your interpretations), but the director's word is as official as it gets.

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 11, 2013, 02:47:36 PM

Quote from: TiLT on October 11, 2013, 12:38:51 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 11, 2013, 12:33:25 PM

Of course, Ridley also gave us Prometheus, so his credibility is a little shot.

How does that hurt his credibility? Don't mix concepts now.

In the sense that it shows a clear lack of understanding of what the previous film was about.  A lot of that blame can be put on Damon Lindelof, but it's not just the navigator who gets taken to task when the ship runs aground.  The man at the helm is at fault, too.

What previous film? Alien? Prometheus isn't trying to replicate what Alien "is about". It's a separate franchise trying to do its own, separate thing. For most people it didn't do its own thing as well as Alien did its own thing, but that's irrelevant to a discussion about Blade Runner. Ridley Scott says Deckard is a replicant, so Deckard is a replicant. If you prefer the movie with Deckard being human, then you're free to interpret it that way. The official word will always, always trump your interpretation when it comes to a public discussion about it though, director's "credibility" be damned.

That is your interpretation.

Also, bullshit. Art takes on a life of its own in the eye of the viewer.  All interpretations are valid.  The creator of the piece can say all he or she wants, it doesn't change anything.

George Lucas went so far as to edit his work to suit his "official" vision.  Han still did not shoot first.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6613


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #66 on: October 11, 2013, 04:52:46 PM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 11, 2013, 04:30:51 PM

That is your interpretation.

No, it's Ridley Scott's official word. I haven't even hinted at my own interpretation here.

Quote
Also, bullshit. Art takes on a life of its own in the eye of the viewer.  All interpretations are valid.  The creator of the piece can say all he or she wants, it doesn't change anything.

It doesn't change your interpretation, but it's still official. You've got people like Richard Kelly who didn't want to tell people what the "official" explanation of Donnie Darko was since he wanted everyone to make up their own theories and solutions, then you've got people like Ridley Scott who willingly shares what the movie is about (after many years). You can ignore the official word however much you want, but that doesn't make it any less official. As I said, once you start debating this in public you can't simply ignore that. Feel free to have your own interpretations, that's fine. Just don't think your interpretation has any impact at all on what the movie is meant to be about. You only control the part that happens in your own brain. Not mine, not anyone else's, and certainly not Ridley Scott's.

Quote
George Lucas went so far as to edit his work to suit his "official" vision.  Han still did not shoot first.

I'm sure you meant to say that Han did shoot first. He did so in the original movie no matter what Lucas says because it's not a matter of interpretation. He shoots last in the first re-release, and at the same time in the last one. Neither invalidates the first. None of the three is an interpretation. All of them are official. Which one you want to be more "canon" in your own head is your own business. The official (not "official". Official!) canon is that Han shot roughly simultaneously with Greedo. A lot of people (maybe most, and me included) will stick to the original movie with the original vision, and that's fine. That doesn't make the original movie's events canon any more though.

I can tell this is a sore spot for you, but please just take a step back and reconsider what the words "official" and "interpretation" mean. You seem to be debating an entirely different issue than the one I've been talking about, thinking that you're countering what I'm saying somehow. You're not.
Logged
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #67 on: October 11, 2013, 06:19:34 PM »

Quote from: Jumangi on October 11, 2013, 02:44:42 PM

If Deckard was a Replicant then why did he get his ass kicked over and over by the other ones? Better not try and pass it off as well he didn't know he was one cause that's a lame reason.

You assuming that all replicants are made for fighting?...The replicants who escaped were from a mining colony and no doubt designed for strength,Deckard would be a sick joke of sorts by Tyrell designed to hunt his own ..and yes,without him knowing what he is Tongue


Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #68 on: October 11, 2013, 08:45:44 PM »

he was a Cylon!
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6613


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #69 on: October 11, 2013, 09:03:04 PM »

Quote from: metallicorphan on October 11, 2013, 06:19:34 PM

Quote from: Jumangi on October 11, 2013, 02:44:42 PM

If Deckard was a Replicant then why did he get his ass kicked over and over by the other ones? Better not try and pass it off as well he didn't know he was one cause that's a lame reason.

You assuming that all replicants are made for fighting?...The replicants who escaped were from a mining colony and no doubt designed for strength,Deckard would be a sick joke of sorts by Tyrell designed to hunt his own ..and yes,without him knowing what he is Tongue

I hadn't really thought about it before, but I would assume Deckard was the ultimate experiment in replicant technology. The challenge: Can they build a replicant that is so believable as a human being and has such advanced memory that it can not only blend into a Blade Runner unit but also hunt its kin with no knowledge of its own nature? Judging by those standards the experiment was clearly a failure, though it worked well for a while.
Logged
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15614


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #70 on: October 12, 2013, 10:53:42 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on October 11, 2013, 04:52:46 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 11, 2013, 04:30:51 PM

That is your interpretation.

No, it's Ridley Scott's official word. I haven't even hinted at my own interpretation here.

Quote
Also, bullshit. Art takes on a life of its own in the eye of the viewer.  All interpretations are valid.  The creator of the piece can say all he or she wants, it doesn't change anything.

It doesn't change your interpretation, but it's still official. You've got people like Richard Kelly who didn't want to tell people what the "official" explanation of Donnie Darko was since he wanted everyone to make up their own theories and solutions, then you've got people like Ridley Scott who willingly shares what the movie is about (after many years). You can ignore the official word however much you want, but that doesn't make it any less official. As I said, once you start debating this in public you can't simply ignore that. Feel free to have your own interpretations, that's fine. Just don't think your interpretation has any impact at all on what the movie is meant to be about. You only control the part that happens in your own brain. Not mine, not anyone else's, and certainly not Ridley Scott's.

Quote
George Lucas went so far as to edit his work to suit his "official" vision.  Han still did not shoot first.

I'm sure you meant to say that Han did shoot first. He did so in the original movie no matter what Lucas says because it's not a matter of interpretation. He shoots last in the first re-release, and at the same time in the last one. Neither invalidates the first. None of the three is an interpretation. All of them are official. Which one you want to be more "canon" in your own head is your own business. The official (not "official". Official!) canon is that Han shot roughly simultaneously with Greedo. A lot of people (maybe most, and me included) will stick to the original movie with the original vision, and that's fine. That doesn't make the original movie's events canon any more though.

I can tell this is a sore spot for you, but please just take a step back and reconsider what the words "official" and "interpretation" mean. You seem to be debating an entirely different issue than the one I've been talking about, thinking that you're countering what I'm saying somehow. You're not.

There is also a difference between author's stated intent and "Official" which is what I think you're missing here.  Just because he says that's what he meant, doesn't make it something that anyone interpreting the movie for themselves has to accept.

My briging up Lucas (and, yes, I did mean Han shot first) was a way of pointing out that directors can get a little crazy with forcing their views on pre-existing material and it doesn't go well or change anything for the audience.  Yes, it is "fact" that Han shot first in the first version of Star Wars released, but George has said he never meant for that to be the case and so forced the change into a later rerelease.  Blade Runner is a far less straight forward tale, and things are less clear by the end.

It actually isn't a sore spot for me at all.  I can see it working both ways, and neither of them bother me.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
TiLT
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Online Online

Posts: 6613


Preaching to the choir


View Profile WWW
« Reply #71 on: October 13, 2013, 09:07:25 AM »

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 12, 2013, 10:53:42 PM

Quote from: TiLT on October 11, 2013, 04:52:46 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 11, 2013, 04:30:51 PM

That is your interpretation.

No, it's Ridley Scott's official word. I haven't even hinted at my own interpretation here.

Quote
Also, bullshit. Art takes on a life of its own in the eye of the viewer.  All interpretations are valid.  The creator of the piece can say all he or she wants, it doesn't change anything.

It doesn't change your interpretation, but it's still official. You've got people like Richard Kelly who didn't want to tell people what the "official" explanation of Donnie Darko was since he wanted everyone to make up their own theories and solutions, then you've got people like Ridley Scott who willingly shares what the movie is about (after many years). You can ignore the official word however much you want, but that doesn't make it any less official. As I said, once you start debating this in public you can't simply ignore that. Feel free to have your own interpretations, that's fine. Just don't think your interpretation has any impact at all on what the movie is meant to be about. You only control the part that happens in your own brain. Not mine, not anyone else's, and certainly not Ridley Scott's.

Quote
George Lucas went so far as to edit his work to suit his "official" vision.  Han still did not shoot first.

I'm sure you meant to say that Han did shoot first. He did so in the original movie no matter what Lucas says because it's not a matter of interpretation. He shoots last in the first re-release, and at the same time in the last one. Neither invalidates the first. None of the three is an interpretation. All of them are official. Which one you want to be more "canon" in your own head is your own business. The official (not "official". Official!) canon is that Han shot roughly simultaneously with Greedo. A lot of people (maybe most, and me included) will stick to the original movie with the original vision, and that's fine. That doesn't make the original movie's events canon any more though.

I can tell this is a sore spot for you, but please just take a step back and reconsider what the words "official" and "interpretation" mean. You seem to be debating an entirely different issue than the one I've been talking about, thinking that you're countering what I'm saying somehow. You're not.

There is also a difference between author's stated intent and "Official" which is what I think you're missing here.  Just because he says that's what he meant, doesn't make it something that anyone interpreting the movie for themselves has to accept.

This is what I've been telling you over and over and over again. We don't actually disagree, but you're reading something entirely different out of my posts than what I'm actually writing.
Logged
metallicorphan
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 16378



View Profile
« Reply #72 on: October 17, 2013, 06:51:16 AM »

Blade Runner as a 1940s film
Logged

Manchester United Premier League Champions 2013!!

Xbox LIVE:Metallicorphan
Wii:8565 1513 0206 1960
PSN:Metallicorphan
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #73 on: October 17, 2013, 06:53:22 AM »

awesome! well done!
« Last Edit: October 17, 2013, 06:55:08 AM by CeeKay » Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18576



View Profile WWW
« Reply #74 on: October 17, 2013, 07:22:12 AM »

HE'S NOT A REPLICANT. I SAID SO.

Tongue
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
CeeKay
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 71766


La-bibbida-bibba-dum! La-bibbida-bibba-do!


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: October 17, 2013, 07:25:03 AM »

OBAMA SAYS HE IS!
Logged

Because I can,
also because I don't care what you want.
XBL: OriginalCeeKay
Wii U: CeeKay
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18576



View Profile WWW
« Reply #76 on: October 17, 2013, 08:05:49 AM »

Who's Obama?
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Razgon
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 8299


The Truth is out there


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: October 17, 2013, 08:08:03 AM »

Isn't he on first?
Logged

A new one
Bullwinkle
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 15614


Watch me pull a rabbit outta my hat.


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: October 17, 2013, 12:13:30 PM »

Quote from: TiLT on October 13, 2013, 09:07:25 AM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 12, 2013, 10:53:42 PM

Quote from: TiLT on October 11, 2013, 04:52:46 PM

Quote from: Bullwinkle on October 11, 2013, 04:30:51 PM

That is your interpretation.

No, it's Ridley Scott's official word. I haven't even hinted at my own interpretation here.

Quote
Also, bullshit. Art takes on a life of its own in the eye of the viewer.  All interpretations are valid.  The creator of the piece can say all he or she wants, it doesn't change anything.

It doesn't change your interpretation, but it's still official. You've got people like Richard Kelly who didn't want to tell people what the "official" explanation of Donnie Darko was since he wanted everyone to make up their own theories and solutions, then you've got people like Ridley Scott who willingly shares what the movie is about (after many years). You can ignore the official word however much you want, but that doesn't make it any less official. As I said, once you start debating this in public you can't simply ignore that. Feel free to have your own interpretations, that's fine. Just don't think your interpretation has any impact at all on what the movie is meant to be about. You only control the part that happens in your own brain. Not mine, not anyone else's, and certainly not Ridley Scott's.

Quote
George Lucas went so far as to edit his work to suit his "official" vision.  Han still did not shoot first.

I'm sure you meant to say that Han did shoot first. He did so in the original movie no matter what Lucas says because it's not a matter of interpretation. He shoots last in the first re-release, and at the same time in the last one. Neither invalidates the first. None of the three is an interpretation. All of them are official. Which one you want to be more "canon" in your own head is your own business. The official (not "official". Official!) canon is that Han shot roughly simultaneously with Greedo. A lot of people (maybe most, and me included) will stick to the original movie with the original vision, and that's fine. That doesn't make the original movie's events canon any more though.

I can tell this is a sore spot for you, but please just take a step back and reconsider what the words "official" and "interpretation" mean. You seem to be debating an entirely different issue than the one I've been talking about, thinking that you're countering what I'm saying somehow. You're not.

There is also a difference between author's stated intent and "Official" which is what I think you're missing here.  Just because he says that's what he meant, doesn't make it something that anyone interpreting the movie for themselves has to accept.

This is what I've been telling you over and over and over again. We don't actually disagree, but you're reading something entirely different out of my posts than what I'm actually writing.

I guess this is your official word, which apparently trumps what has actually been said in a public discussion.
Logged

That's like blaming owls because I suck at making analogies.
Purge
Gaming Trend Staff
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 18576



View Profile WWW
« Reply #79 on: October 17, 2013, 12:31:14 PM »

I suppose it also rains on Arrakis, too.
Logged

"If it weren't for Philo T. Farnsworth, inventor of television, we'd still be eating frozen radio dinners." - Johnny Carson
Pages: 1 [2] 3   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.559 seconds with 104 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.433s, 2q)