Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I get the feeling Scott is continuing with his "the bladerunner is a replicant and doesn't know it" theme, which Philip K Dick had already explored by his 1952 short story "Imposter" (also made into a movie starring Gary Sinese) long before his much more thematically evolved 1968 "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?"
This is a recap from the Wikipedia plot synopsis of "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?":
Quote:
Deckard retires the android, then flies off to retire his next target: Luba Luft, an opera-singing Nexus-6. This android, however, has him arrested by a police officer he has never met and detained at a police department he has never known.
At this strange police station, Deckard's worldview is shaken when an official named Garland accuses Deckard of being an android. After a series of mysterious revelations at the police station, Deckard ponders the ethical and philosophical questions his line of work raises regarding android intelligence, empathy, and what it really means to be human. Phil Resch, the station's bounty hunter, finally gets testing equipment to determine if his coworkers as well as Deckard are androids or humans.
Finally, Garland reveals that the entire station is a sham, completely staffed by androids, including Garland himself. Resch shoots Garland in the head and escapes with Deckard; together, they find and arrest the android opera singer, which Resch suddenly, brutally retires in cold blood.
Although Resch and Deckard are now collaborating, each still worries that the other, or himself, might be an android. Deckard administers the empathy test to himself and Resch, which confirms that Resch is a particularly ruthless human being, and that Deckard is also human, but with empathy for androids.
This has far more thematic depth than simply "Deckard is a replicant and doesn't know it."
Last edited by Ralph_Kirk; 05-08-2017 at 02:01 PM..
I get the feeling Scott is continuing with his "the bladerunner is a replicant and doesn't know it" theme. This has far more thematic depth than simply "Deckard is a replicant and doesn't know it."
I agree that the whole "Deckard is a replicant' is a bit of shallow silliness that Scott pulled out of his hindquarters. Just more evidence that Scott is the best visual filmmaker of his generation, but he still doesn't have the first clue about a good story.
That said, Scott isn't directing this. The director is Denis Villeneuve, who most recently did ARRIVAL. So I'm hoping that he has tossed out the nonsense, or at least downplayed it for a real story as opposed to Scott's gimmickry,
This was the exact story line about the original movie 1982.
In the futuristic year of 2019, Los Angeles has become a dark and depressing metropolis, filled with urban decay. Rick Deckard, an ex-cop, is a "Blade Runner". Blade runners are people assigned to assassinate "replicants". The replicants are androids that look like real human beings. When four replicants commit a bloody mutiny on the Off World colony, Deckard is called out of retirement to track down the androids. As he tracks the replicants, eliminating them one by one, he soon comes across another replicant, Rachel, who evokes human emotion, despite the fact that she's a replicant herself. As Deckard closes in on the leader of the replicant group, his true hatred toward artificial intelligence makes him question his own identity in this future world, including what's human and what's not human.
Can think of only a few resurrections. Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead was very good. Last of the Mohicans better than the Randolph Scott and multiple other versions. Wow it's a short list. Maybe because they remake them politically correct with unrealistic characters. Scarface (1983) also better than the Cagney's original.
3:10 to Yuma (2007) not bad. Gone in 60 Seconds (2000), Heat (1995) Michael Mann remaking himself, The Italian Job (2003) close but no cigar as with The Mummy (1999), Ocean's Eleven (2001) very close but no match for the Rat Pack; Robin Hood (2010) was pretty close (Errol Flynn not Costner) but no one will agree with that.
Most of them mediocre at best and that's probably new Blade Runner.
Can think of only a few resurrections. Zack Snyder's Dawn of the Dead was very good. Last of the Mohicans better than the Randolph Scott and multiple other versions. Wow it's a short list. Maybe because they remake them politically correct with unrealistic characters. Scarface (1983) also better than the Cagney's original.
3:10 to Yuma (2007) not bad. Gone in 60 Seconds (2000), Heat (1995) Michael Mann remaking himself, The Italian Job (2003) close but no cigar as with The Mummy (1999), Ocean's Eleven (2001) very close but no match for the Rat Pack; Robin Hood (2010) was pretty close (Errol Flynn not Costner) but no one will agree with that.
Most of them mediocre at best and that's probably new Blade Runner.
BLADE RUNNER 2049 is a sequel, not a remake. Better comparisons might be:
2010: The Year We Make Contact was a 1984 sequel to 2001: A Space Odyssey from 1968. (And a better movie. I don't care what the critics say.)
Terminator 2: Judgment Day from 1991 is a sequel to The Terminator from 1984. Both are great.
Independence Day: Resurgence from 2016 is a sequel to Independence Day from 1996. I hated the first one so much that I never bothered with the sequel.
There are more --- Dumb and Dumber, the Rambo movies, the Rocky movies, Creepshow, scads of Disney flicks.
Maybe all those people and companies that invest tens of millions of dollars in a film actually want to make a profit, and understand the nature of branding.
I agree that Blade Runner hardly needs a sequel. So I won't see the sequel. Thus, for me it's exactly the same as if this sequel was never made. Thus, I don't see the problem.
I love the original movie, too, but I have the opposite take on it. I'd love to see more stories in that universe, as long as they're good. Movie fans have nothing to lose since the original movie will still hold up on its own if the sequel is bad. But what if the sequel is good or even better than the original?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
