If you guys read the original story (maybe you have , but I'll continue as if you have not). The movie is primarily focused on Deckard's hunting down of the rogue replicants touching on some themes about what it means to be real vs artificial. I assume because Ford's character is in this, it will be a continuation of the original screenplay, however IMO the original book is much richer than the movie and there are many themes they could examine.
- The Earth is dying because of a previous nuclear war.
- Most people are immigrating to Mars or space stations.
- People who are too damaged can't leave, and with mental damage are called chicken heads.
- People still on Earth are so obsessed with living creatures, owning them as pets is a major preoccupation and expense. So strong is the desire, that people who can't afford real, are content with artificial animals.
- Mood Organs are used to artificially adjust people's moods.
- The exploration of Mercer-ism a religion followed by virtually everyone and an accusation from the most popular tv personality that it is fake, but is it?
- A group fusion device used to experience Mercer-ism.
- Questions regarding the replicant tests- An implication that the tests used to determine if a person is a replicant may not be full proof. An assumption all human beings have empathy for one aother, may not be true.
- That replicants who rebel, want a better existence than being used as slaves.
- Replicant's have something equivalent to a underground on Earth.
- Rachel Rosen's personality is different than in the movie, she is in no real jeopardy, unlike the movie Rachel she is not the vulnerable andy who discovered she's not human. And it's not clear if she can really experience love or not.
- In the book, what we see of the replicant's is they act primarily in self defense, which is similar to the movie except for Roy Blatty's cold blooded murder of Dr. Rosen (in the movie).
To answer your question "why?", the answer is revenue generation.
I agree that in the realm of sequels unless they are part of multipart story, mostly they dissapoint. I agree that over reliance on CGI has ruined many a movie, while acknowledging that CGI is improving to such a degree that unless a person is being animated, it has reached a threshold where it's virtually impossible to tell what is real and what is generated. But none of this can substitute for brilliant vision, story telling and direction.
I'll add to your example, the original movie The Haunting (1963) as compared to its 1999 remake is night and day, the latter totally ruined by CGI while the former relies mostly on your imagination to scare you. And it's filmed in the most beautiful black and white.
For the original Blade Runner, it's such a simple story, Deckard, a Blader Runner is given a mission to eliminate 4 rogue replicants who have the nerve to be unhappy about their existence resorting to violence.
Although we don't exactly know how biological versus mechanical these artificial people are, I think what makes this movie standout is a dark future, the moral ramifications of artificial human slaves who are able to reflect on their existence, while feeling sadness and pain and might possibly be a remote examination of what it means to have a soul. As characters, I had the most empathy for Rachel and Roy. I guess that is no surprise.
Regarding the Blade Runner sequel- thank goodness it is a sequel and not a remake, however the bar will be so high I plan on being dissapointed. The original movie is set in 2019, this new movie 30 years later. What story choices will be made? Will Rachel have survived? Will there be more of the same, rogue replicants that need to be put down? Or will the continuation of this strory take a sharp turn and explore virgin territory?
Origin of the Blade Runner name (LINK)
An interesting tidbit, is that Phillip Dick wrote Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheet in 1968. The Blade Runner was an unrelated story/book written in 1974 about black market medical services in a futuristic society (I think) and based on that book in 1979, a screenplay was commissioned, but no movie was made. Then in 1982 the screenplay for the Phillip Dick story was written and the screenwriter preferred the name Bladerunner, suggested this to Ridley Scott who bought the rights to the other book so he could just use it's name.
Just watched Blade Runner (Final Cut) in prep for Blade Runner 2049 tomorrow.
This is brief but emotional for me:
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die.
The question is, if Deckard is a replicant, how did he survive 30 years? And what happened to Rachel?
Original Blade Runner Plot
Original Blade Runner Plot
- Deckard is coerced to resume duties as a Blade Runner, he retires rogue replicants.
- Rachel, Dr. Tyrell’s assistant, does not know she is a replicant at first.
- Deckard retires Zhora (replicant dancer).
- Rachel saves Deckard from Leon (replicant employee at Tyrell Corp).
- At his apartment they have a personal relationship.
- Priss (replicant) befriends Sebastian and introduces him to Roy (leader of rogue replicants).
- Sebastian takes Roy to see Dr Tyrell, because Roy wants to extend his and Priss’s life. There is no good answer so he murders Tyrell.
- Deckard goes to Sebastian’s apartment to confront the 2 remaining replicants.
- Priss almost kills him, but he kills her.
- Roy breaks two of Deckard’s fingers and gives him a fighting chance.
- Roy feels loss for Priss.
- In pursuit of Deckard, Roy starts to die (lifespan ending) and drives a nail though his hand to maintain functionality.
- Roy chases Deckard to the roof, and instead of killing him, saves Deckard’s life, and delivers a monologue just before his time runs out.
Last edited:
