FAQ  •  Login

Blade Runner sequel books reading club

<<

Masao

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 232

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:54 am

Post Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:43 pm

When the first one came out, I thought it might be interesting...but as I read the book jacket(which covered many of the changes of the story) I lost all interest and left it on the shelf where I found it.

"Blade Runner 2" didn't seem to want to follow the rules set by the film and was not sophisticated enough to interweave DADoES with the film...Why then bother??

Rachael is dying but Sebastian and Deckard are alive?? etc etc etc.

The one survivor of the whole story should have been Rachael...unless Deckard killed her as in the script. Then again, Deckard doesn't survive either. Why kill the only decent character in the story??

This is where I have to disagree with Mead, the story has no point if Deckard is a Replicant with a short, meaningless life, because he can learn nothing from it, nor implement it.

But I digress.

To follow the film...everyone should be taken at their word...especially the director.

Assuming Deckard was a replicant and Rachael was special...Either Both Rachael and Deckard survive or only Rachel survives.

Killing Rachael guts the story.

If BR were to continue true to form; Deckard would be out in the snow gun pointing to the back of Rachael's head -poised to the pull the trigger, when his hand begins to ache. It claws up into a pale dying thing even as he looks at it. Its nails are turning black as he stares unbelievingly.

He would leave her there, laughing in the snow. When she turns to look at him he is gone. The gun is there, the car is there, but he is not.

That would be a way to end the story. He saw her worth an his own worthlessness and...like he said, he never liked the idea of shooting a woman...especially in the back.

This ending would fix the Mead dilemma BTW.
<<

Centauro

User avatar

Blade Runner
Blade Runner

Posts: 729

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Bogota, DC [CO]

Post Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:28 am

There was a short story titled "La Belle Dame Sans Merci", who was set in the snow. I liked it very much and the outcome was kind of similar to what you just said. ?Why I never saved that website? It went offline and never ever found the story anywhere else. It was a fanzine-like website with some cool ilustrations,poems and drawings.
-------------------------------------------------------------- Revel In Your Time --------------------------------------------------------------

Image
<<

Masao

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 232

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:54 am

Post Thu Jun 14, 2007 7:17 pm

This is a twist on one of the original script endings...but it takes into account Batty's epiphany about existence and Deckard's need to implement his understanding of his new wisdom from Batty. This would be his only opportunity.

The themes are pretty well established. Remember the ending "Of Mice and Men"? It would have been too similar to kill Rachael like that. Also there was no justification for killing her. If that were not bad enough "He owed her". There is no conceivable was to justify Deckard killing her...even out of mercy.

It would be much more logical to make Deckard finally human, than let him end unchanged by the entire story. Batty evolved, why not Deckard?

This is at the core of my disagreement with Mead.

Deckard begins as a robot that becomes human. Even if he was born human he starts as a 'robot' in the film.

It is just my opinion; but it seems that the best course for a sequel is to return to PKD as best as possible.
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Thu Jun 14, 2007 10:42 pm

What does this have to do with "Mead"? Do you mean Hampton Fancher?
Image
<<

Masao

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 232

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:54 am

Post Fri Jun 15, 2007 12:13 am

Syd Mead was the prime proponent of the Replicant Deckard theory. He once said something to the effect that "if Deckard were human he would just be another supercop chasing the bad guys. The story would have no meaning."

Mead is not just a designer, he is also an urban planner. The mindset of urban planners often flies in the face of what human beings need as individuals and refers to such as "masses". In this case; "Polite society does not stray below the 100th floor."

This is a mindset one reserves for herd animals.

Add this concept with an anti PKD version of Deckard, you get a story where the protagonist destroys all in his wake without personal growth or development.

He goes nowhere and accomplishes nothing except destruction. The fans therefore are dedicated to a meaningless journey. In short, the audience is made up of idiots and they should learn to accept that fact.

I can't accept it. It is a personal insult to propose that perspective is the correct POV of the film.
Last edited by Masao on Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Fri Jun 15, 2007 1:37 am

I am curious to your sources? I know Hampton Fancher wrote about the killing of Rachael long before Syd Mead came into the project. As was the idea of Deckard a rep discussed before Mead (all this is in Future Noir).

When I saw Syd at RIT last year he said he basicaly just worked on Ridley's Ideas and tried to make them real. He said Ridley deserves all the credit for the design of the film. That doesn't sound like someone who pushed his ideas on Ridley.

I am not calling a liar or anything, because you sound like you may know a lot more than you are telling.
Image
<<

Centauro

User avatar

Blade Runner
Blade Runner

Posts: 729

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Bogota, DC [CO]

Post Fri Jun 15, 2007 5:59 am

Masao, are you japanese or is it just a nickname you like?
-------------------------------------------------------------- Revel In Your Time --------------------------------------------------------------

Image
<<

Masao

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 232

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:54 am

Post Fri Jun 15, 2007 8:00 am

ridleynoir wrote:I am curious to your sources? I know Hampton Fancher wrote about the killing of Rachael long before Syd Mead came into the project. As was the idea of Deckard a rep discussed before Mead (all this is in Future Noir).

When I saw Syd at RIT last year he said he basicaly just worked on Ridley's Ideas and tried to make them real. He said Ridley deserves all the credit for the design of the film. That doesn't sound like someone who pushed his ideas on Ridley.

I am not calling a liar or anything, because you sound like you may know a lot more than you are telling.


Ok, I should clarify. First, I am telling it as I see it. My info comes from many of the same sources that are available to everyone else. However, when I can find more sources though, I do ask. It took me years of knowing Bear before he mentioned his relationship to the Blaster.

If you mention the name Syd Mead even outside of BR circles you get "Oohh, ahh". You mention Hampton Fancher even some BR fans will say "Who??"

That was my point about it being a "Syd Mead arguement" aside from the lack of clarity in the film. He was the one most notibly in interviews talking about replicant Deckard.

For years Syd Mead insisted Deckard was. Scott sometimes said "maybe" then years later finally 'yes'.

Fancher was probably indeed the source of the idea, but how many people even know who he is? Despite his background, writers rarely get the credit of directors.

What makes the whole issue worse was that the execution of the idea all could have been unintentional. The one shot that Deckard's eyes shine in could have just been a lighting error.

The main clues: shining eyes & memory implants are pretty meaningless considering the technology.

Let's look to another PKD story for a hint " If someone stole your mind...how would you know??"

With the technology of memory transfer, it is possible to know another person's most intimate secrets. You could then turn around and say " You know that secret you keep? That's just an implant."

How would your victim know you were lying??

And about shining eyes...pretty stupid clue in a world of surgical enhancements. Anyone who could afford them could have them.

Tyrell:"Would you like something enhanced?"

The best clue actually in any version of the film is the last leap. This clue rarely gets any attention but it is incredibly important. If anything in the film proves the point; this is it.

A while back I took a look at the distance from the Bradbury and the closest point on any building. The street is a good 20' or more across. The sidewalks are wide. I would estimate that the distance from building to building actual distance between the walls would be close to 40'!

Someone in the L.A. area who is adventurous enough to spend time in that part of town can confirm this with a measuring tape.

Even subtracting 15' for overhangs as in the film that still leaves close to 25'. Even in the future, city blocks would keep their size. This means Deckard almost made a 25' leap without special assistance/equipment.

I don't know about you, but on my best day with a springboard I doubt 20' would be within reach. If there was ever proof, that is as close as I have seen.

I never said Mead thought of shooting Rachael. It was Fancher I referenced when I presented the anti "Mice and Men" arguement. I think the end I mentioned would have been both acceptable and logical within the genre.

BTW Masao is my real name.
Previous

Return to The Blade Runner Movie Sequel

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest