Harrison Ford on Blade Runner II script: "Wow, this is the best thing I've ever read"
44 replies, posted
I feel like people here either don't know what a director is or they assign Ridley magical movie making powers which is just not the case.
By his own admittance, Ridley is a visual director first and foremost. If you give him a shitty script, you're going to get a shit film that looks great (prometheus prime example)
It feels like people forget that film making is a collaborative effort. A director doesn't just sign on, wave his magic wand and suddenly its good. Yes they have a lot of creative control, but if the core of the film is rotten, it doesn't mean much.
Alien and Blade Runner were so fucking good because every component was working in unison.
So does this confirm Deckard wasn't a replicant?
[QUOTE=tempunary;46703111]So does this confirm Deckard wasn't a replicant?[/QUOTE]
Probably, thankfully.
[QUOTE=G-Strogg;46703171]Probably, thankfully.[/QUOTE]
Not thankfully.
The fact that Deckard was implied to be a replicant is one of the best movie endings of all time.
I remember Harrison Ford saying he hated the that fact that Deckard was a replicant, or something along those lines. So I really don't trust Harrison Ford's opinion on if this is a good script or not.
Ridley Scott will never live up to the majesty that was that bread advert:
[video=youtube;9dfAk3hxrSM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfAk3hxrSM[/video]
[QUOTE=tempunary;46703111]So does this confirm Deckard wasn't a replicant?[/QUOTE]
Though Ridley already spilled the beans on this, I don't want the film to confirm or deny anything really.
It is never going to live up to its predecessor. Period. Audiences are treated as morons these days and gets everything handed to them. That's when you start to have movies like Inception and Interstellar labeled "intelligent" because not every single fucking aspect of the movie is explained in dialogue.
Tbh, Blade Runner is my favorite movie and I don't think anything else will top it, even a sequel.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';46703329]Not thankfully.
The fact that Deckard was implied to be a replicant is one of the best movie endings of all time.
I remember Harrison Ford saying he hated the that fact that Deckard was a replicant, or something along those lines. So I really don't trust Harrison Ford's opinion on if this is a good script or not.[/QUOTE]
it was implied in the ending? i dont remember that
[QUOTE=demoguy08;46703813]It is never going to live up to its predecessor. Period. Audiences are treated as morons these days and gets everything handed to them. That's when you start to have movies like Inception and Interstellar labeled "intelligent" because not every single fucking aspect of the movie is explained in dialogue.[/QUOTE]
well that was pretty true of the original blade runner as well.
the original original blade runner, not the directors cut
[QUOTE=Kentz;46703926]it was implied in the ending? i dont remember that[/QUOTE]
It's pretty blatant.
[sp]When leaving Deckard's apartment with Rachael, she(?) knocks over a small origami figure (the ones made by Gaff) of a unicorn - Deckard dreamed of a unicorn earlier in the movie, something Gaff couldn't possibly have known; unless Deckard's memories are implanted of course. Deckard picks up the unicorn and there's a (unneeded in my opinion) flashback to Gaff at the rooftop after the Roy Batty fight, where he says "It's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?" and Deckard nods to himself after that. Maybe Gaff lets her live because he knows that both of them have a limited time to live, and they won't do any harm? I don't know, but the replicant part is hinted at in several scenes, and Ridley himself (sadly) went out of his way to confirm the suspicions.[/sp]
This is just what I remember on top of my head, so maybe I got some stuff wrong, but yeah, it's very much implied.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;46703813]It is never going to live up to its predecessor. Period. Audiences are treated as morons these days and gets everything handed to them. That's when you start to have movies like Inception and Interstellar labeled "intelligent" because not every single fucking aspect of the movie is explained in dialogue.[/QUOTE]
Inception is easy to follow only for the ending you need to look for clues. Interstellar seemed to explain too much.
[QUOTE=demoguy08;46703813]It is never going to live up to its predecessor. Period. Audiences are treated as morons these days and gets everything handed to them. That's when you start to have movies like Inception and Interstellar labeled "intelligent" because not every single fucking aspect of the movie is explained in dialogue.[/QUOTE]
lol what? inception has scenes where the character explains explicitly the plot. it was a good movie but it felt like an "intelligent" movie for children.
[editline]13th December 2014[/editline]
movies nowadays should be more ambiguous. ambiguity is a great tool for immersion.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46704187]It's pretty blatant.
[sp]When leaving Deckard's apartment with Rachael, she(?) knocks over a small origami figure (the ones made by Gaff) of a unicorn - Deckard dreamed of a unicorn earlier in the movie, something Gaff couldn't possibly have known; unless Deckard's memories are implanted of course. Deckard picks up the unicorn and there's a (unneeded in my opinion) flashback to Gaff at the rooftop after the Roy Batty fight, where he says "It's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?" and Deckard nods to himself after that. Maybe Gaff lets her live because he knows that both of them have a limited time to live, and they won't do any harm? I don't know, but the replicant part is hinted at in several scenes, and Ridley himself (sadly) went out of his way to confirm the suspicions.[/sp]
This is just what I remember on top of my head, so maybe I got some stuff wrong, but yeah, it's very much implied.[/QUOTE]
Thats the final cut I think??
In the directors cut its much less blatant. Which is what i dont like about final cut, everyone comes to the same conclusion regardless, but final cut just sort of whacks you over the head with it like you're too much of a fucking idiot to get what the origami means.
[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;46704695]Thats the final cut I think??
In the directors cut its much less blatant. Which is what i dont like about final cut, everyone comes to the same conclusion regardless, but final cut just sort of whacks you over the head with it like you're too much of a fucking idiot to get what the origami means.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I dislike the flash back for that exact reason - it was on-screen just a few minutes before that. And yeah, I think it's from the Final Cut.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.