If Blade Runner is unfamiliar to you, I’m probably coming across as too mysterious. But I don’t want to spoil it for you, not even with a plot summary. But a little background wouldn’t hurt: suffice it to say the movie is set in a future in which synthetic humans — called Replicants — are mass produced to be used as labor. But they’re not seen as human, nor considered human at law. They’re simply genetically engineered lifeforms designed to be “more human than human”. And, as you might expect — especially if you are a fan of the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica — they’re just deemed to be too dangerous to mix with naturally-born folks. So they’re illegal on Earth. The job of a blade runner is in fact to locate illegal Replicants and kill them on the spot.
In sum, the movie does force the viewer to ask what the meaning of “being human” actually is, while exploring the themes of identity crisis that so obsess Phillip K. Dick. But watching it is far from being a mere exercise in philosophy. It’s exciting; and beautiful to both watch and listen (the soundtrack by Vangelis is also an old favorite). It’s best appreciated in a theater, but a nice big screen TV will do. There is no doubt that the upcoming Blade Runner sequel will be quite an event. So might as well get ready and acquaint yourself with the original movie. Make it part of your weekend. You won’t regret it. Even if you don’t like it as much as I do, you’re bound to get something worthwhile out of the experience.
Will it have the serendipity to have a “Tears in Rain” moment ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_saUN4j7Gw
I’m just afraid a sequel will somehow take away from the amazing original movie.
Don’t screw this up, Scott!
You’re not being obtuse: “Blade Runner” is a very famous movie that was a seminal event in the history of Hollywood design and art direction.
It also innovated some really incredible special effects using miniatures and forced perspective. It is an amazing film on many levels of film production.
It’s not an obscure movie, though it didn’t do well at the time it was released. A number of other movies from recent memory (Silverado and Point Break come to mind) had dismal or mediocre openings, and went on to be much more impressive in video sales and on cable, and resonate with audiences more. Point Break has always been a mediocre movie, as far as I’m concerned, but they’ve recently announced plans to re-make it, believe it or not.
I don’t typically like sci-fi, but I didn’t really see Blade Runner as sci-fi in any recognizable sense. Sure, Harrison Ford had a weird-looking gun, and they did things with computers that were futuristic at the time (photo-enhancing isn’t the future any more). The cars were futuristic. But really, the gritty, dirty, noir setting of the film wasn’t the typical sci-fi setting (with its pristine sets and beautiful people wearing tailored matching uniforms) that most sci-fi pics portray. From the noir atmosphere to the first person narration by Ford, it was more or less a Private Eye film with a futuristic setting, and that set it apart from most of the rest of what was on the screen then, and now. Good movie.
Hard to imagine it being very good; other than the incredible visuals, the only good parts were those taken directly from Dick’s novella (which is much better than the movie), and since there’s no one writing these days at his level (although the Matrix was a decent rip-off of his novel Ubik), it’s hard to see how this would get close to the level of the original.
I’d read the short story before I ever saw the movie and I also read the expansion to an almost novel. I’ve seen the original movie several times and seen the director’s cut once. Didn’t know there was a new cut but I’d like to see it. I have to say, that while I do appreciate the “slavery” aspect of it, the simple enjoyment of the movie and the acting made it a great movie to begin with. For that purpose, the original was better than the “director’s cut”. I also have to say, it is one of those rare events where the movie is way better than the original written version. I like happy endings in my entertainment.
No good will come of this.
I don’t know…
I’ll have to wait and see what the cast looks like before i pass judgement. And even then I will probably hate the idea until I see it in the theaters.
Maybe I am old fashioned, but it seems to me that too many movies these days are just eye candy. Computer animation has freed moviemakers from the constraints of reality and the result seems to be way-over-the-top and unrealistic. Like modern video games, characters are flat and plots thin; both are secondary to all the non-stop blowing up, flying through the air, slow mo action scenes etc..
When I first read the headline I was afraid this would be a mere re-make. To that I say ” If it isnt broken, dont fix it.”
A prequel or sequel could be good, but it is difficult to image as good as the original. I am keeping my fingers crossed that Scott doesnt give in to the temptations of cheap computer eye candy.
K.W. Jeter (b. 1950) has written three sequels to BR,”The Edge of Human”(1995), “Replicant Night (1996), and “Eye and Talon” (2000). I haven’t read the third, but the first two are a direct sequel to the film (not the original PKD novella), explaining several of its more obscure points, such as where the term “blade runner” came from to begin with.
Deckard is the central character in both, and the aftermath of the Roy Batty/Eldon Tyrell case sends him to Mars to find out the truth about what was actually going on.
I won’t say more, so as not to spoil it for those who haven’t read the books yet, but either one would be an excellent basis for a sequel film.
cheers
eon
I would love to see a sequel, as I loved the first one. That said, it was based on an excellent story. I have enjoyed Philip Dick’s writing for a long time. That’s what Scott will have to make sure he has. A good and deep story. Without it, all the beautiful cinematography won’t matter. Scott captured the Depth of Dick’s story. He needs a story with equal depth.
With all due respect, most of the movie had little in common with Dick’s short story; much like most of his work that is re-written for the screen. While Dick worked with the screenwriters (and Scott) in creating “Blade Runner” — which more than anything gave the movie version a lot of it’d edge — the remaining screenplays wrought from his writings manage to miss Dick’s intended meaning almost completely. While based in the future — in most cases — Philip K Dick’s stories always focus on more social concepts, rather than things blowing up and going bzzzzzzt in spectacular fashion. The characters that populate his books are characteristically weak and flawed for the most part, and his heroes — when he bothered to supply one/any — usually have decidedly ulterior motives. Besides, unlike most movies, Dick’s opuses typically go completely sideways at the end and make for some of the best plot twists ever written. Stuff that could never really be possible to recreate in a film — although Scott managed to capture some of the more intriguing subtleties in “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” with “Blade Runner”. I would hate to see what sort of hash arises from anyone attempting to put Ubik on the screen. That book, by the way, has one of the most horrifying sequences I have ever read, and will truly test anyone’s imagination.
Do yourselves a favour and hunt down a few of Dick’s books and enjoy a master at work.
Blade Runner has to be one of th greatest films of the 20th Century. Everything that came after imitated it’s look -commercials included. I enjoyed the original but the Director’s Cut is the best version.
I don’t see how Scott can top the original. “Star Wars” never managed to to it.
Who, really, cares. I’m getting a little sick and tired of sci-fi movies, superhero movies, movies about transformer robots, movies about vampires, and movies about the living dead. I would really, really, love to see one, just one, historical bio-pic movie with real people in it. The last one I can remember was “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World,” but if you want to go back to the 1980s there were also “Breaker Morant” and “Gallipoli,” two fine movies. And needless to say it doesn’t have to involve war of any kind. When was the last time you saw a good coutroom melodrama, let alone a film noir-based movie? Something like Mildred Pierce (which was recently done on Showtime) or Fritz Lang’s “The Big Heat.” Anything, ANYTHING, but more digital make believe junk for 10-year-olds.
Something tells me that outfits like Showtime and HBO will be the only outlet for films like that (such as “Band of Brothers” or “The Tudors”). But for the big-scream movie theaters, forget it. It’s Harry Potter or bust. I think I’ll stay home.
You didn’t like “Vatel”, ” The Madness of King George”, the Queen Elizabeth films, “The Affair of the Necklace”, “The Queen”, “A Beautiful Mind”.
There’s quite a lot more – more than I can remember and very good films.
And how old are those? Very few and far between. And maybe, just maybe, you may get one film around Oscar time. Big deal. When compared to the animated junk, of vampire junk, the superhero junk, the Harry Potter junk, and the supernatural junk, real life falls way, way, behind. And that’s a shame, because it just means that we don’t want to deal with reality anymore. And with the generation that’s currently growing up (espcially those protesting on Wall Street), it shows.
During its entire history when in the world have Hollywood films been about dealing with reality? Each and every one is a big full glass of fantasy.
I think I can understand your pain. Nevertheless, Blade Runner is not the same kind of movie as Transformers or any of the blurring action and pointless explosions kind of garbage that passes for science fiction these days. Anyone who likes Transformers will probably tell you that Blade Runner is boring, to appreciate it they would actually have to think.
Ridley Scott should have topped himself after making the lying,grovelling, anti-christian drivel “Kingdom of Heaven”.
One of the amazing things about Blade Runner is how very different it is from its inspiration, Phillip Dick’s, “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”
In fact, other than the notion of replicants, artificial animals, and a couple of the character names, the two have very little overlap.
Both are good, but I prefer the emotional impact of the movie.
Maybe he should turn it over to James Cameron to direct, like he did with Aliens.
Riiiiiight… Giving a sequel script to Cameroon is like “interfering” with a corpse.
Saw it when it first came out, visually stunning, and a decent storyline to boot. Have it on DVD. But given the overall quality of sequels, I’m a bit leery.
Will reserve judgment on prequel or sequel when we know the cast. No more aging Harrison Ford.
Would prefer a sequel that is not depressing about the concept of what it means to be human.
Some interesting back-story:
I didn’t really care, one way or the other, but it does put a bit of a bow on the story.
1) The Director’s Cut is actually what was supposed to be originally released to theaters. They ran a preview, and people left completely confused. Nobody understood the movie. After some scrambling, Scott brought Harrison Ford back in to do the voice overs. Which ended up adding tremendously to the film noir setting that captured so many people’s imaginations after the movie was released to theater. Many purists insist that the DC is much better, but I happen to really enjoy the voice over. Purely my opinion.
2) Scott finally admitted, after many years of badgering, that Deckard is, in fact, a replicant. There are many hints in the movie (which I’ll leave for others to pursue), and was the fodder for conversations for conspiracy theorists worldwide.
One of my all-time favorite movies. If Scott can get a screenplay put together that does justice to a sequel, then it’ll be worth it.
Dude:
Please erase your post. The Deckard spoiler will ruin the movie for those who have not seen it. Let them figure it out for themselves. The concept of Deckard being a replicant completely changes the entire complexity and meaning of the storyline. Let the folks discover the story on their own. This said, I also prefer the original theatrical release with the narrative.
Deckard is not a replicant and one can’t say “oh, by the way…” years later. If it isn’t in the original film, which it emphatically is not, it didn’t happen.
Saying Deckard is a replicant is not a spoiler; he’s not. That idea has not one iota of bearing on the original film’s story.
I think the viewer is able to take anything he or she wants out of a movie. If people want to consider Deckard a replicant, why not?
I guess it’s no longer a spoiler to say this, but… The question of Deckard’s humanity — or anyone in the story for that matter — is pretty much the main theme of the book/film. I would imagine Ridley Scott was baffled that so many folks missed that facet of the film. As mentioned by others, he had to add the narration so people could understand things “better”. Interesting that some that have seen the movie still miss that whole aspect… Maybe it is a plus that we are discussing it here? Regardless, I don’t think talking about it will take anything away from the brilliance of the production. I have probably watched it several dozen times over the years and I enjoy it each time. Definitely use a good sound system at high volume from the start. The opening sequence is magnificent!
I disagree: most people I know who have more than a passing interest in SF films like Blade Runner see it as a film that questions what it is that in fact defines us a human. In this sense, one can say that Deckard’s own humanity is questioned but he is NOT a replicant and if you’re going to take that from the movie why not go further and say the escapees were in fact normal humans who had their memories altered? I can make just as effective a case for that as Deckard being a replicant, maybe more so.
Such a thing would be entirely in keeping with Dick’s work but each of us re-writing screenplays in our own heads begs the question of why one would go to a film in the first place.
The theatrical release had 2 huge advantages over the Director’s Cut IMHO. Firstly, the voice-over by Harrison Ford really did bring an added noire quality to the film and it helped to accentuate a lot of the emotion in the film, which is ironic given Deckard’s (Harrison Ford’s) general lack of emotion. SPOILER ALERT Just as importantly, in the Theatrical Release you are led to wonder if Deckard himself is a replicant. There are things in the film that would naturally raise that suspicion including his lack of emotion, the pictures in his apartment, the example of Rachel who has memories which are not hers. But, in the Director’s Cut (which I hated) the fact of Deckard’s being a replicant is firmly established by the dream sequence in which he dreams of a unicorn after which Gaff leaves a paper unicorn on the floor, showing that he knows what Deckard dreams because those dreams are implants. It was much better when the question was left open for the audience to ponder.
You can’t go home again: re-visiting this film is pointless. The chances of replicating (pun) that kind of nuance and depth again are slim to none.
When I was in college I did not have any TV reception, so for 2 years I had blade runner on an endless loop (in community college I did the same thing with the movie Bachelor Party). 20 years later I paid a pretty penny for a VHS of the origninal release of Blade Runner in mint condition.
It is amazing how the construct of your thinking change over time when you critically analyze and process the same movie 20 years removed. It essentially was a new movie to me.
Scott Ridley captured the subtle nuances common to Phillip K. Dicks literature. I highly recommend to anyone who is a fan of the movie to give it another look. I beleive the original cut is available on NetFlix as an instant view.
This said, the book the movie is very losely based on “Do Androids Dream Electric Sheep” is as about as depressing a book as you will ever read. If that is what Phillip was going for in the book, he nailed it.
I saw the Director’s Cut 2 summers ago. It made little sense. Harrison Ford’s character had no special talents justifying why only he was qualified to complete the mission. Really, no qualities or talents at all. I didn’t care what happened to any character. It was a confusing mess. Was he a replicant or wasn’t he? Who cares. I recall liking the original way back in the 80s but couldn’t remember much about it. The DC version was a total bore. I wanted my two and a half hours back.
I do not understand this dependence on sequels and rehashing previous work. Is there no-one even remotely capable of something original anymore? I foresee some soapy, CGI monstrosity replete with obligatory pandering to today’s “youth”. In other words — crap. It will probably bow to every eco canard there is and go way too far to be seen as “inclusive” and “diverse”. I wish these money grubbing lefties would leave the classics alone! Always trying to meddle with history and make it fit with their diseased world view. Bah!
Interesting comments, and interesting perspectives. I was and still am a complete and utter Philip K Dick fanatic. I saw Bladerunner as soon as it came out, still prefer that version – with the voiceover. My comment in all of this is, there are many other Philip K Dick stories, that explore human complexities without reverting to Hollywood’s preponderance with prequels and sequels. I’ve often thought of contacting Ridley Scott, and suggesting another Philip K Dick story for him to make into a film. I admire what he has done, across the board, don’t have agree with interpretations, if they don’t match your beliefs or thoughts. And to the comment on Philip K Dick writing to “depress”, he wrote a short story on paranoia, that I still think ranks as one of the greatest sci fi short stories. I can only guess, but I imagine he was trying to make you feel the weight of depression.
From one “Dickian” to another; Cheers! Well said. I am trying to think of the story you are referring to, but no doubt you are aware that Dick wrote many, many stories that revolve around paranoia! Or myriad other mental conditions for that matter… I have always been fond of “Clans of the Alphane Moon” though, and could see that making for a riotous film. Probably wouldn’t make it past the “sensitivity” censors though. lol
This thread has turned out to be a lot of fun. Thanks PJ!
P.S. I have quite a few first and second edition Phil Dick books in my collection, along with many more later reprints. Both paperback and hardcover. Many were extremely hard to come by. He was not always considered the gifted genius that he was.
I seem to remember that in Dick’s Minority Report the lead character was a distinctly non-Tom Cruise-like sweaty, middle-aged guy. Spielberg altered it by, as he inevitably does, nicking the bad cop (James Cromwell=Max von Sydow) sub-plot from LA Confidential and bolting it on top in a bizarre fashion. Ruined the movie for me.
I have the movie on BlueRay…and it’s stunning. I have all the versions on the set…it’s a great movie.
We just saw Ridley Scott’s “Robin Hood”. It was OK. Was interested to see that Richard’s death was realistically portrayed. OTOH, Alien and Blade Runner are two of my favorite movies. A small point, but I really liked the scene in Blade Runner where a lady at a street level Sushi bar looks at a scale using an electron microscope and spots a copy-right embedded at the DNA level. Just got it on Blu-Ray. Saving it for a winter’s night.
I personally loved the director’s cut. I can see how it would confuse people given the fact that you need to pay attention to little origami figures in what is a very, very, large looking background but to do so makes the ending so much better than the originally released cut.
As for sequels, Ridley Scott was able to make a pretty good sequel to Alien. The fact that it is years later will also allow him to make a totally related movie rather than something that takes up the plot. I’ve noticed that sequels that take on different themes rather than the plot itself seem to be better (Godfather 2, Aliens for example).
Bladerunner is definitely a favorite on my list of sci-fis. The visuals and music are indeed wonderful, as are all the little details that occur along with the main action.
I might also suggest “The Fifth Element” as a good watch.
For people who weren’t born at the time of the film’s release, I would recommend Deus Ex: Human Revolution instead of Blade Runner. A lot prettier than Blade Runner and makes a hell of a lot more sense.
I assume ZMGF-X10A Freedom’s comments relate to the game. In the field of Science Fiction movies, dare I say genre’, Blade Runner will always stand out. Philip K Dick might not be renowned for describing space walk, or imagining something we accept as commonplace (although I am sure there are many examples). He has apparently become more popular, since passing on. However, he had the ability to take us one step away from reality, and write a story about typical or normal people. People with all the faults, weaknesses and strengths that everyone typically has. The one step away from reality, usually, giving him something to tweak the story with, and make interesting. He would put a twist on politics, human foibles, and bureaucracies. I always believed his style was the style of science fiction that would interest non-sci fi readers.
I loved the original and still watch it occasionally but God, how I hate sequels! I’ve yet to see one as good as the original version of any movie. Anyone else still waiting for the “Forever War” movie?