May 16, 2014

Here's something we didn't need

They're planning a sequel to Blade Runner.

They say they want Harrison Ford back for it. It's supposedly set several decades after the first film. There's a really huge continuity problem with that.

Spoilers below the fold.


The "Director's Cut" version of the original movie (which I consider the true canon) makes clear that Deckard himself is a replicant, created to take that case. When he and the girl flee north to Oregon, they're both stuck with the 4-year time limit.

So there's no way Deckard could still exist several decades later.

The scene with Roy and Tyrell makes very clear that they can't make replicants that live longer than that. They tried all kinds of approaches, and none of them worked.

So the "no time limit" voice-over at the end of the non-director's-cut version of the movie is a crock. It was always a crock; it was added because the studio wanted a happy ending instead of the whiplash downer that Ridley Scott had planned all along. (The origami unicorn.)

Posted by: Steven Den Beste in General Entertainment at 09:54 AM | Comments (3) | Add Comment
Post contains 176 words, total size 1 kb.

1

Of course, if they studio had not gone with the voice-overs (Which barring the ending, I liked.), we would not have gotten the 'tears in rain' dialogue that Scott choose to keep in the Director's Cut version.

C.T.

 

Posted by: cxt217 at May 16, 2014 11:02 AM (oH+G5)

2

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at May 16, 2014 12:27 PM (+rSRq)

3

I prefer the theatrical version. Includes the voice-over, no unicorn dreams, Deckard is not a replicant (if he is, the story is utterly ruined for me), Gaff leaves the origami unicorn for no other reason that to let Deckard know he was there and did him a solid, they ride off into the sunset and an uncertain future.

Hey, I'm an enigma.

Also, replicants are built with the 4 year life spans to prevent them from developing their own personalities - and thus start to demand rights, which is undesirable. Once the lifespan is encoded into their DNA when they are produced, it's can't be altered (that's what Tyrell told Roy, and who knows if he was lying or not), but they can be made with any lifespan the designers choose. Rachel's lifespan is not noted in the movie, only that she was special and didn't have any particular limit encoded, which makes sense because the entire point of the experiment was to find out if her emotional programming would give her a longer useful duration (a failure to be sure). Over the years I have always found Rachel's character extremely compelling, and I'm not exactly sure why. Tyrell's niece must have been quite a woman.

Posted by: Bob (aka Robert) at May 16, 2014 04:08 PM (HVe2L)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Enclose all spoilers in spoiler tags:
      [spoiler]your spoiler here[/spoiler]
Spoilers which are not properly tagged will be ruthlessly deleted on sight.
Also, I hate unsolicited suggestions and advice. (Even when you think you're being funny.)

At Chizumatic, we take pride in being incomplete, incorrect, inconsistent, and unfair. We do all of them deliberately.

How to put links in your comment

Comments are disabled.
9kb generated in CPU 0.0, elapsed 0.0101 seconds.
20 queries taking 0.0064 seconds, 20 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.