FAQ  •  Login

All this talk of a sequel...how about a prequel??!!

<<

pkd_chris

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 8

Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Dallas

Post Fri Oct 05, 2001 10:08 am

From time to time allmost any BR fan will bring up weather or not they would like to see a sequel to our fave film ever be made..but i propose another perhaps more intrigueing idea...a prequel. As w/the first SW film everytime i watch BR i get the feeling of an enormous back story waiting to be told. SW fans are getting that in the form of the new trilogy...what about us BR fans though? Its only a thought...honestly i think sequels/prequels more often than not ruin the integrity of the original film(Alien,Godfather,Terminator being obvious exceptions)
<<

Paul G

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 85

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Oz

Post Sat Oct 06, 2001 3:27 am

Good point, but I see a problem.<BR>Blade Runner was a movie about issues. The characters developed. Deckard developed (from what I percieved atleast, only seen the movie three times thus far).<BR>If a prequal was made then the entire theme of the first movie would be lost againa s the characters would be undeveloped and shallow in comparison to the characters in the original.<BR><BR>Yes? No? what do you guys think??<BR><BR>Paul
<<

Sir Random Rep

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 21

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:00 pm

Post Sat Oct 06, 2001 12:51 pm

When it comes to Deck I agree but not when it comes to the (other?) replicants. Many interesting questions are never answered in the movie.<BR><BR>"I want more life, fucker!" But why? The replicants' hunger for more life is fascinating but never really explained. Just to say it's a question of simple survival insticts is a shallow explanation in my opinion. At least in such a complex movie as BR. What triggered it?<BR><BR>Why do the reps have empathy? The andys in DADOES don't give a damn about each other but the replicants in Roy's group do. Roy and Pris seem to really love each other and both Roy and Leon go bezerk when Pris and Zhora gets killed. They seem to be very empathic after all. Why is that Leon?<BR><BR>And finally why is Zhora (one of my favourite characters) independent from the rest of the group? An intriguing amazon indeed.<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Sir Random Rep on 2001-10-06 18:53 ]</font>
Replicants have more fun!
<<

Paul G

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 85

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Oz

Post Sat Oct 06, 2001 3:00 pm

Well, I personally would say that the reason that in the movie the replicants were emphatic (is that a word??) woud be because of the image that the replicants are more humane then the actual humans in the film. My question (sorry for repeating it for it is on my other topic, but ties into this) is that how can we be sure that the replicants *are* so much more emphatic than humans when the only human looked at in depth is Deckard (assuming he even *is* human)?<BR><BR><BR>Paul
<<

Skooter

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 6

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Tyrell's Cloning Vats

Post Sun Oct 07, 2001 12:28 pm

Hello all! I'm new! Just rode into town and everything. <G><BR>Yes, as I said in the general discussion board earlier today, I'm thinking of writing such a story. I think that the Replicants showed much more empathy than any of the humans did, and that this was one of the points of the film---the humans were dehumanized, and the replicants were discovering all of the things that humanity (at least, those humans living in LA) were taking for granted. The image that came to mind was of Roy and Pris falling for each other, shortly before Blade Runner takes place---perhaps a year or even less---after which Roy kills her "owner" so that they can be together. Bryant said that "Pleasure models" like Pris were standard for Offworld Millitary Top Brass--- perhaps Pris's "owner" was one of Roy's commanders? I can see Roy as having disturbed his human "Superiors" with his wit and intellect. One thing I'm wondering---where did Roy read all that poetry? I don't think that anyone in the Tyrell co. would have programmed what they'd intended to be a remorseless killing machine/cannon fodder with such knowledge. Who would have showed it to him? Was there maybe at least one human who recognized Roy as a fellow sentient being and introduced it to him? <BR>I think that Roy was just a phenomenon who (literally and figuratively) just sort of "got away from them." <BR>What do you think?<BR>Glad to be here,<BR>---Skooter. <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">
FREE THE REPLICANTS!!!!
<<

Skooter

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 6

Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Tyrell's Cloning Vats

Post Sun Oct 07, 2001 12:35 pm

This is in response to Sir Random Rep...<BR>Zhora rocks! I liked her character. She had way too little screen time!<BR>---Skooter
FREE THE REPLICANTS!!!!
<<

Paul G

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 85

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Oz

Post Mon Oct 08, 2001 2:09 am

Skooter, what I'm asking is that, although humans definitely dehumanised, are there enough examples of this dehumanisation to sustain the conclusion which you have come to? <BR><BR>Human characters which have more that 1 conversation in the movie: Deckard (possibly) Tyrell (Possibly) Gaff, Bryant and Holden.<BR><BR>Humans looked into in any depth at all (dehumanised or otherwise): Deckard, Gaff (slightly)<BR><BR>Replicants in the movie: Roy, Pris, Zhora, Rachel, Leon<BR><BR>Replicants looked into in any depth at all (Dehumanised or otherwise): Roy, Pris, Rachel, Leon.<BR><BR>anyone notice a discrepancy here??? Scott seems determined to make us believe his ideas of dehumanised humanity..... Has he given us enough evidence to make a decision?????<BR><BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Paul G on 2001-10-08 08:10 ]</font>
<<

Sir Random Rep

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 21

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:00 pm

Post Mon Oct 08, 2001 10:23 am

Welcome Skooter! Judging from what you've been posting here and on the general discussion board it's EXACTLY the prequel I'd love to see! It's almost weird, like you've been reading my mind. I think it ties in perfectly with the questions I've mentioned above. Make sure to keep me updated on this. I can't wait to read it, man!<BR><BR>And Paul G, I see your point now. When it comes to replicant empathy there's not really any human empathy to compare with in the movie. I've never really thought about it before. A disturbing thought. But then again, I think this confusion correspondes pretty well with PKD's original purpose with "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?": to provoce us to ask the question "What is human and what is not?"
Replicants have more fun!
<<

Paul G

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 85

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Oz

Post Mon Oct 08, 2001 1:28 pm

Skooter, maybe you should consider exploring some human emotions in your prequel to combat this discrepincy? (pardon spelling)<BR><BR>Sir Random Rep,<BR>I wonder how likely this is, seeing as in PKDs book the replicants had no emotion.... Has Ridley Scott made a role reversal in the movie, as human characters have no emotion whilst the replicants make us feel guilty with their perfection *of* emotion? Is this a discrepancy seeing as we are told that the replicants have no emotions by Bryant in the movie???<BR><BR>Paul<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Paul G on 2001-10-09 08:19 ]</font>
<<

Sir Random Rep

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 21

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:00 pm

Post Mon Oct 15, 2001 9:47 am

Paul G, I'm not really sure I understand what you mean. (English is btw not my mother tongue.)<BR><BR>I think you're right about the role reversal. In PKD's novel human beings represent emotional chaos and androids emotional chill. In Scott's movie all human beings are rather numb and all replicants quite alive (perhaps with the exception of Leon). I'm not sure what you mean when you say replicants make us feel guilty with their perfection of emotion though.<BR><BR>As I recall, Bryant never says replicants lack emotions. As they are completely sentient beings they may develope emotions. That's why they have a four year lifespan limit. Correct me if I'm wrong.<BR>
Replicants have more fun!
<<

Paul G

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 85

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Oz

Post Tue Oct 16, 2001 12:04 am

Rep:<BR>What I mean about the guilt is that Scott seems to want us to feel bad about not living up to the replicants' emotional depth. The human in the movie is shallow and bitter whilst the replicants lust for life. Scott seems to be trying to make the argument one sided.<BR><BR>Bryant doesn't say the replicants have no emotions, but does imply it saying that the replicants were identical to humans in every way but their emotions, as well as saying that the developers were worried that the replicants would develope emotions.... I personally assumed this meant that they began with none?<BR><BR>Personally I think that perhaps Scott is trying to pursue an avenue of human self-loathing previously exhibeted by William Golding in "Lord Of The Files". Scott seems to be a lobbyist for mans intrinsic evil. Is this intentional, and if so only part of the Noir category???
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Tue Oct 16, 2001 5:47 am

Bryant: "They were designed to copy humans in every way, except thier emotions. But the designers reckoned that after a few years they might develop their own emotional responses. Oh, hate, love, fear, anger, envy. So they built in a fail-safe device."<BR><BR>Deckard: "Which is what?"<BR><BR>Bryant: "Four-year life span."<BR><BR><BR>My understanding is that Replicants do experience emotions/feelings from 'day one' but don't have the life-experiences of normal adult humans to know how to respond rationally to their feelings.<BR><BR>The four-year life span was put in to cut their lives short before they fully developed their 'emotional reponses' - personally, I don't see how that could help, but it may explain the replicants extreme violence and general disregard for life. Of course the other explanation of the four-year lifespan is one of commerce - if you manufacture something that lasts forever you'll saturate the market and go out of business, therefore build in a expiry date and your customers are forced to return every four years.<BR><BR>Rachel was different - they gave her Tyrell's niece's memories to help her form rational responses to her emotions. This may have been in response to the behaviour shown by the current Nexus6 replicants - perhaps Rachel was the beta test version of Nexus7.<BR><BR>Just a few personal thoughts...<BR><BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.deckard.worldonline.co.uk/filez/b26354.jpg" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><BR>B26354<BR><BR>--------------------------------------------<BR><BR>The difference between the impossible and the possible is equal to the difference between today and tomorrow.<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Deckard BR26354 on 2001-10-16 11:54 ]</font>
Richard Gunn

We each live in our own realities - who's maintaining yours?

The only thing that you can be 100% sure of, is that you can't be 100% sure of anything.
<<

Sir Random Rep

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 21

Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2001 6:00 pm

Post Tue Oct 16, 2001 8:48 am

Deck, thanx for sorting things out. And I think you're right about memory implants - they are most probably a response to inadequate Nexus-6 behaviour. The bloody Off-world mutiny...<BR><BR>Paul, I see what you mean now. I agree that Scott is a "lobbyist for man's intrinsic evil" in Blade Runner (as well as Alien), but I'm not sure about his other movies. <BR><BR>I think Scott's misanthrophy in BR might have something to do with the fact that Scott lost a brother prior to filming BR. On the other hand, Scott's a stylistic master so it might simply be a tribute to film noir...<BR><BR>
Replicants have more fun!
<<

Paul G

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 85

Joined: Sun Sep 23, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Oz

Post Wed Oct 17, 2001 2:34 am

Deck: Could the 4 year span maybe be a device creaed by Scott to achieve two major points in the movie: 1) To give the replicants a reason to bloody well be on earth, and 2) to give humans yet another point against their humanity in the same way that Pris is described by Bryant as a "Basic Pleasue Model". I agree that they probably feel emotions but would originate with no preconcieved ideas of them, like a species discovering and developing emotions for the first time, a time which would in all likelyhood would have an extremist affect upon all that occurs. Emotions would be heightened because of inexperiance. Even so, surely the emotions would differ from humanity, because what is there present to make them the same? Human identity and emotion are the product of thousands of years of evolution. Humans did not always have the same emotional mind-set that we do today. Surely replicant emotion would be a more primitive derivitive if, like you say, it does start from when they were create.<BR>You're opinion???<BR><BR>Rep: Although Scott lost his brother, would you say that this would have affected Alien as well? Assume for a second that it wasn't for Noir..... could Scott be attempting to manipulate us so that we feel this loathing and the fact that Deckard is the sole human (besideds Sebastion who isn't looked into as much emotionally as with sympathy ((his opinions/drive are never truly revealed IMHO)) delved into emotionally all to convince us of this point. Are we being manipulated????<BR><BR><BR><BR>*mumbles about bad grades in essays on this movie and overresearching topics*<BR><BR>Paul G
<<

Gene Ettix

User avatar

Blade Runner
Blade Runner

Posts: 618

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Tyrell Corp. U.S.

Post Wed Oct 17, 2001 6:48 am

I'd like to put in my 2 cents worth if I may.In response to pkd_chris' original post here,I'd like to say:<BR><!-- BBCode olist Start --><OL TYPE=1><!-- BBCode --><LI>I agree that films can lose their integrity with the addition of sequels, and I really believe most fans of BR don't want a prequel/sequel in any way,shape,or form."Side"quels,on the other hand,could retain integrity and give us more of what it is we crave-the BR universe.(SOLDIER w/ Kurt Russell is an example/attempt at this - on TBS many times this month BTW)All of this has been discussed in earlier posts so I don't want to get too long-winded.<BR><!-- BBCode --><LI>ALIEN,The Godfather,and Terminator all had the attention redirected away from them by their sequels IMHO.Although the sequels were good, they were'nt as stylish as the originals...and they were'nt as good.The originals were jaw-dropping when released.Let's say Aliens was kewl, but did'nt affect me like ALIEN did in 1979 at all. </OL><!-- BBCode olist End --><BR> Also...to address Paul G in the previous post - J.F.Sebastion was in fact a rather complex character since he had "accellerated decrepitude", as Pris so aptly put it.He was aging very fast, not unlike the Reps who were living on "borrowed time", as well.Just something to think about.Thanx people <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"><BR>P.S. Wasn't Sebastion originally written for the story as a Rep?<BR><BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><IMG SRC="http://www.quanticdream.com/english/t03.gif" BORDER="0"><!-- BBCode End --><!-- BBCode Start --><I><!-- BBCode Start --><B>~GeNe~</B><!-- BBCode End --></I><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Gene Ettix on 2001-10-17 12:57 ]</font>
ImageImageImage
Next

Return to The Blade Runner Movie Sequel

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron