Upcoming movie

[Ordo]

Well that answers an age old fan debate...Deckard is not a replicant since he should've been long dead by then if he were.

Yes he is, Ridley Scott has confirmed that he is one and mentioned it in a 2012 interview about the sequel: "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."

Not all replicants had a four year life span, it was something added to the Nexus 6 line as I recall as a safety feature. The theatrical cut of the film mentions Rachel didn't have that feature in a VO, so it's possible Deckard didn't have that feature either. In fact, it's very likely they were both part of the same experimental line.

There are any number of ways they can get around that even if he did. Rachel might have had something to do with it.

He is a replicant, it's been officially confirmed, and that Unicorn scene doesn't really allow for any other interpretation.

http://moviepilot.com/p/was-harrison-fords-deckard-a-replicant-in-blade-runner/4173335

there is the disagreement between film star Harrison Ford and Ridley Scott over this debate. Scott has stated in several interviews that Deckard was a Replicant, but Ford argues that they both agreed originally that he wasn’t. Now, could this have been a move on Scott’s part to get a more natural performance out of Ford? If so, is it the director who gets to make this call, or is it up to the actor portraying the character? If Ford played the part as a human, does that mean that Deckard was a human all along? Co-star Rutger Hauer has chimed in on this debate by stating that he always believed that Ford’s character was human, which he thought added a deeper meaning to the final clash between them at the end of the film. Was it a battle between man and machine or was it just two Replicants duking it out?

https://www.quora.com/Was-Deckard-a-replicant-in-Blade-Runner

So the answer to this question therefore entirely depends on which version of the film you think of as the true Blade Runner and if the story belongs to Scott, Francher or Dick. Here are their opinions on whether or not Deckard is a replicant:

Hampton Francher (original screenwriter)-  During a discussion panel with Ridley Scott for Blade Runner: The Final Cut he cuts Scott off during the replicant talk saying "Ridley's off, he's totally wrong!" and that "[Scott's] idea is too complex" and prefers the film to remain ambiguous saying "So the question [is Deckard a replicant] has to be an eternal question. It doesn't have an answer, and what I always say about that is what Pound says: 'Art that remains news is art in which the question 'what does it mean'' has no correct answer. I like asking the question [about Deckard] and I like it to be asked but I think it's nonsense to answer it...that's not interesting to me."
http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2...

Harrison Ford- considers Deckard to be human, saying "that was the main area of contention between Ridley and myself at the time. I thought the audience deserved  one human being on the screen that they could establish an emotional relationship with. I thought I had won ' agreement to that, but in fact I think he had a little reservation about that. I think he really wanted to have it both ways." http://media.bladezone.com/conte...  (end of clip)

Philip K. Dick (author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the book the film is based on)- he wrote the original role of Deckard as a human. "The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?"

As for the Unicorn....if at any point Deckard has talked to a Dept. Psych....or friends and mentioned that dream...it's not hard to see Graff referencing it. As one reviewer put: http://sfdebris.com/videos/films/bladerunner.php
"The Unicorn could symbolize something a Human Deckard is searching for....and that thing turns out to Rachael."
Speaking of which...I ignore the theatrical cut since the Director and Ford were unhappy with it...so the idea of Rachael continuing to live...is unlikely.

 

[Contrabardus]

snipped

Always loved how this movie gets held to a different standard than other films in regard to 'who it belongs to'.

Any other movie and the director's word is final. There's no question it's Scott's movie. No one is going to argue that 2001 isn't Kubrik's movie and that anything he might have said about it is the final word. Same goes for Nolan and Inception, what DiCaprio or the screenwriter thinks about the ending has no real weight in the face of anything he would say.

Why is this movie different? The simple answer is that it's not, and that fans are simply using others to hold up their favored outcome, even though with any other movie the director's word is the final word of God. Scott has the final say in what his movie means. This is further solidified by the fact that he's the one making the sequel, so he decides what is or is not canon in his film.

At the end of the day it's Scott's adaption, so anything anyone who was under him says about it is overridden by his word.

 

[Ordo]

snipped

Always loved how this movie gets held to a different standard than other films in regard to 'who it belongs to'.

Any other movie and the director's word is final. There's no question it's Scott's movie. No one is going to argue that 2001 isn't Kubrik's movie and that anything he might have said about it is the final word. Same goes for Nolan and Inception, what DiCaprio or the screenwriter thinks about the ending has no real weight in the face of anything he would say.

Why is this movie different? The simple answer is that it's not, and that fans are simply using others to hold up their favored outcome, even though with any other movie the director's word is the final word of God. Scott has the final say in what his movie means. This is further solidified by the fact that he's the one making the sequel, so he decides what is or is not canon in his film.

At the end of the day it's Scott's adaption, so anything anyone who was under him says about it is overridden by his word.

If Scott were the originator of the idea, the writer and director I might see your point, but he's not. He adapted a story to screen written by Philip K Dick, which was scripted by Hampton Francher (Who is writing Blade Runner 2049). Additionally, Scott's view on the subject appears to have changed according to Harrison Ford. Scott changing his mind after the film was in the can is his prerogative, but since the story is not his alone his word, in this case, is not WOG.

 

[Contrabardus]

snipped

Always loved how this movie gets held to a different standard than other films in regard to 'who it belongs to'.

Any other movie and the director's word is final. There's no question it's Scott's movie. No one is going to argue that 2001 isn't Kubrik's movie and that anything he might have said about it is the final word. Same goes for Nolan and Inception, what DiCaprio or the screenwriter thinks about the ending has no real weight in the face of anything he would say.

Why is this movie different? The simple answer is that it's not, and that fans are simply using others to hold up their favored outcome, even though with any other movie the director's word is the final word of God. Scott has the final say in what his movie means. This is further solidified by the fact that he's the one making the sequel, so he decides what is or is not canon in his film.

At the end of the day it's Scott's adaption, so anything anyone who was under him says about it is overridden by his word.

If Scott were the originator of the idea, the writer and director I might see your point, but he's not. He adapted a story to screen written by Philip K Dick, which was scripted by Hampton Francher (Who is writing Blade Runner 2049). Additionally, Scott's view on the subject appears to have changed according to Harrison Ford. Scott changing his mind after the film was in the can is his prerogative, but since the story is not his alone his word, in this case, is not WOG.

This is what I mean by special pleading in this case. This doesn't fly considering how we view the director's say in other movies.

Kubrick didn't write 2001 or The Shining, but if he were alive he'd have the final say in what he made meant in his movies.

Same goes for the director in any other film, yet people arguing about Blade Runner consider it a special case for no good reason beyond their pet theory being contradicted by Scott.

 

[Ordo]

Always loved how this movie gets held to a different standard than other films in regard to 'who it belongs to'.

Any other movie and the director's word is final. There's no question it's Scott's movie. No one is going to argue that 2001 isn't Kubrik's movie and that anything he might have said about it is the final word. Same goes for Nolan and Inception, what DiCaprio or the screenwriter thinks about the ending has no real weight in the face of anything he would say.

Why is this movie different? The simple answer is that it's not, and that fans are simply using others to hold up their favored outcome, even though with any other movie the director's word is the final word of God. Scott has the final say in what his movie means. This is further solidified by the fact that he's the one making the sequel, so he decides what is or is not canon in his film.

At the end of the day it's Scott's adaption, so anything anyone who was under him says about it is overridden by his word.

If Scott were the originator of the idea, the writer and director I might see your point, but he's not. He adapted a story to screen written by Philip K Dick, which was scripted by Hampton Francher (Who is writing Blade Runner 2049). Additionally, Scott's view on the subject appears to have changed according to Harrison Ford. Scott changing his mind after the film was in the can is his prerogative, but since the story is not his alone his word, in this case, is not WOG.

This is what I mean by special pleading in this case. This doesn't fly considering how we view the director's say in other movies.

Kubrick didn't write 2001 or The Shining, but if he were alive he'd have the final say in what he made meant in his movies.

Same goes for the director in any other film, yet people arguing about Blade Runner consider it a special case for no good reason beyond their pet theory being contradicted by Scott.

In this case I have the director arguing one thing, and the Writer and Actor arguing another....which is complicated by what the director told the actor while filming. If the director changed his mind after the fact...that weighs in on how the movie was originally shot and intended to flow. Rachael's extended life was not in the original cut and their is no indication that any Replicant's live longer than four years. Since the theatrical cut was not the Directors original vision, and was done at the behest of the suits at the studio, that extended life span just doesn't seem to fit. So now we have a movie set 30 years later...long past Repli-Deckard obsolescence date, which seems to confirm my earlier post.

 

[Contrabardus]

If Scott were the originator of the idea, the writer and director I might see your point, but he's not. He adapted a story to screen written by Philip K Dick, which was scripted by Hampton Francher (Who is writing Blade Runner 2049). Additionally, Scott's view on the subject appears to have changed according to Harrison Ford. Scott changing his mind after the film was in the can is his prerogative, but since the story is not his alone his word, in this case, is not WOG.

This is what I mean by special pleading in this case. This doesn't fly considering how we view the director's say in other movies.

Kubrick didn't write 2001 or The Shining, but if he were alive he'd have the final say in what he made meant in his movies.

Same goes for the director in any other film, yet people arguing about Blade Runner consider it a special case for no good reason beyond their pet theory being contradicted by Scott.

In this case I have the director arguing one thing, and the Writer and Actor arguing another....which is complicated by what the director told the actor while filming. If the director changed his mind after the fact...that weighs in on how the movie was originally shot and intended to flow. Rachael's extended life was not in the original cut and their is no indication that any Replicant's live longer than four years. Since the theatrical cut was not the Directors original vision, and was done at the behest of the suits at the studio, that extended life span just doesn't seem to fit. So now we have a movie set 30 years later...long past Repli-Deckard obsolescence date, which seems to confirm my earlier post.

Steven King didn't like Kubrick's take on the Shining. He's quoted as saying he thought Jack was too mean, and that he wanted to hurt his family. This was not his intent when he wrote the book. Jack went crazy, but he never really became malevolent and sadistic. He was dangerous, but didn't realize what he was doing.

The fact that King didn't agree with some of the license Kubrick took with the story doesn't change the fact that it was Kubrick's movie and Jack becomes sadistic and malevolent in it.

Movies based on a source are adaptions, and changes are made for various reasons. As an example, in Guardians of the Galaxy 2 J'son is not going to be Starlord's dad. For no other reason than the director doesn't like him.

The screenwriter does write the story, but the director can change what they want. They can have the script rewritten, even if it means firing the screenwriter. It's their vision of the screenplay that ends up on film. Studios can force changes, but the bulk of the outcome is on the director's shoulders.

I believe Scott has said something to the effect that he directed Ford that Deckard was human to shape his performance. He intentionally misdirected the actor to get what he wanted out of him.

Scott is saying he's a replicant in regard to the sequel, he was quoted in regard to that and outright says that he is one. Even if the experimental model angle doesn't work, there may have been other ways to get around the four year lifespan. We don't really know what Deckard has been up to since he left. We don't know the technical details about how the shortened lifespan worked exactly. It was a failsafe, and there's no reason to think it couldn't be disabled somehow.

Given that Scott says outright that he is one, this is pretty much a given.

At the end of the day, it's Scott's movie. He was in the director's chair and it's his call what is or is not canon in the film. Particularly since he's also directing the sequel and is saying that he's a replicant in the new movie. This is pretty much him dropping the mike on the debate.

 

[OniGanon]

It's not unheard of for directors to deceive or withhold information from their actors for the sake of getting the right performance out of them. Ford's word doesn't really mean anything here.

 

[Ordo]

At the end of the day, it's Scott's movie. He was in the director's chair and it's his call what is or is not canon in the film. Particularly since he's also directing the sequel and is saying that he's a replicant in the new movie. This is pretty much him dropping the mike on the debate.

Look again, he's not directing the sequel, he's the executive producer. The man in the directors chair is Denis Villeneuve, the man who directed 'The Arrival', and 'Sicario'

 

[Contrabardus]

At the end of the day, it's Scott's movie. He was in the director's chair and it's his call what is or is not canon in the film. Particularly since he's also directing the sequel and is saying that he's a replicant in the new movie. This is pretty much him dropping the mike on the debate.

Look again, he's not directing the sequel, he's the executive producer. The man in the directors chair is Denis Villeneuve, the man who directed 'The Arrival', and 'Sicario'

Could do worse. Still, every point I made still holds up.

 

[Ordo]

At the end of the day, it's Scott's movie. He was in the director's chair and it's his call what is or is not canon in the film. Particularly since he's also directing the sequel and is saying that he's a replicant in the new movie. This is pretty much him dropping the mike on the debate.

Look again, he's not directing the sequel, he's the executive producer. The man in the directors chair is Denis Villeneuve, the man who directed 'The Arrival', and 'Sicario'

Could do worse. Still, every point I made still holds up.

I'm going to put a pin in this, because the writer for Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049 is the same guy and holds a very different pov from Ridley Scott. If the new director follows the writers path in the new film I will revisit this argument after the new movie has come out.

 

[da_fox2279]

Wes Anderson officially announces new animated film, 'Isle of Dogs'

 

[Contrabardus]

Blade Runner 2049 has been officially confirmed as an R rated film.

 

[Contrabardus]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WllguzelFFs[/video]

 

[Ordo]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WllguzelFFs[/video]

Rules for exploring Alien planets

1. Never...EVER...take your helmet off.
2. NEVER...put your face...or any other part of your body near an unknown object.
3. If anyone on your crew can not follow the above rules...leave them on the ship.
4. Quarantine rules are there for a reason.
5. If you do not believe your crew can follow these rules...do not land, turn around and head back to earth.

 

[da_fox2279]

Rob Liefeld's Extreme Universe Is About To Become A Cinematic Universe, Deadline reports

Dear God... what fresh hell is this?!

(x-posted to comics)

 

[Lord Raa]

And that's what kills the comic book movie genre for a generation.

 

[da_fox2279]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zW2NGgAPQQ[/video]

 

[Ordo]

Blue really is his color.

 

[da_fox2279]

Blue really is his color.

What flick?

 

[da_fox2279]

Woody Harrison signs up for unspecified role in Han Solo stand-alone film

Taraji P. Henson to star in the thriller, "Proud Mary"
Henson will play a hit woman whose life is upturned when she meets a young boy who awakens the maternal instinct she never knew she had.

 

[Contrabardus]

Woody Harrison signs up for unspecified role in Han Solo stand-alone film

Rumor is he's playing Han's mentor. The guy who taught him how to be a smuggler and how to get by in the galaxy initially. Not sure if he'll get himself killed to save him, or end up betraying him, but probably at least one of the two if not both.

 

[Contrabardus]

[video=youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKlbX-t9GLg[/video]

 

[Ordo]

Blue really is his color.

What flick?

The Sequel to Pacific Rim

Woody Harrison signs up for unspecified role in Han Solo stand-alone film

Rumor is he's playing Han's mentor. The guy who taught him how to be a smuggler and how to get by in the galaxy initially. Not sure if he'll get himself killed to save him, or end up betraying him, but probably at least one of the two if not both.

New rumor about Kylo Ren: http://makingstarwars.net/2017/01/rumors-on-star-wars-episode-viiis-tie-fighters/

He really is such a Vader Fanboy....

 

[da_fox2279]

'Game of Thrones' star Peter Dinklage in talks for unspecified 'key role' in 'Avengers: Infinity War'

 

[Contrabardus]

'Game of Thrones' star Peter Dinklage in talks for unspecified 'key role' in 'Avengers: Infinity War'

He'd be an amazing Puck.

Too bad Fox probably owns the rights to Alpha Flight. I seem to recall they have the rights to the mutant members of the team at least.

He'd be to Puck what Ryan Reynolds was to Deadpool.