Blade Runner 2!?


ISTR he absolutely hates doing publicity, so he’s invariably uncomfortable and peevish during interviews.


I think it’s a good choice of director. Add robots and a few sci-fi doodads in “Enemy” and you pretty much have a Blade Runner movie. There’s something about the tone in “Incendies” that also makes it good practice for something like Blade Runner.

I don’t get the whole “Deckard is a replicant” theory. It makes no sense, except as an artificial mind screw or for the proverbial “lulz”. Who would make a middle-aged, alcoholic, world weary robot gumshoe with below average physical ability? How about the people in the police who seem to have known him for years? Are they all in on it?


Well, firstly, it’s not a theory. It’s the clear and unambiguous intent of Ridley Scott’s original cut.

But that is an interesting point about the rest of the police, mainly because I don’t recall Deckard interacting with other cops beyond Gaff – who knows he’s a replicant – and M. Emmett Walsh as his direct superior – who would presumably be part of the experiment. Am I missing anything in terms of his relationship with other cops?



I dunno, I guess those are the only two cops he meets in the movie? I don’t really remember. I remember his boss being very genuine with him, though.

I thought this was some kind of George Lucas “Han shot first” kind of deal where the director stretches the original movie in some other direction with a new edit. Kinda makes me want to see both edits to compare. And it’s Harrison Ford again, hmmm…

His “human-ess” is also too much if he’s a replicant. Deckard is so cutting edge and in tune with human emotions that not only he can detect other replicants with the Voightkampf test, but he can also uncover Rachel on the first try despite her being much more sophisticated than the others? Rachel is also supposed to be cutting edge and she’s still kinda wooden. Is he even more experimental than Rachel?


Well, it’s not really Lucas-ian in its “newness”. Scott intended to at least hint Deckard was a replicant all along. Basically, Scott didn’t have final cut on the movie. Without any reference to verify details where I am, Scott ran over-budget/missed a deadline and the financiers (Ladd?) took control of the film. After negative test screenings, they then removed all of the hints toward Deckard as a replicant, added the noir-voiceover, and added the driving “happy ending” footage at the end (ironically from (filmed for?) the beginning of The Shining.

I don 't think that Scott ever made any pronouncement about that question until after they released the work-prints as “director’s cuts” and then went back for a real directors cut in '93 or '97? I can’t remember which. At that point he came out and said Deckard was, for his intention, a replicant.

That said, I hate the idea of Deckard as a replicant with the passion of a thousand suns. Future Noir has a section where Hampton Fancher traces what he thinks is the genesis of this idea to a version of the script where at the end as he watched Batty die, Deckard remarks that he and Batty “were brothers”.

@Tom, the only other times I can remember him interacting with other cops are when he is identifying himself to the prowler patrol by the Bradbury, after shooting Zora, and the cut scene in the hospital visiting Holden.


Wikipedia is pretty informative about this:

So Scott is convinced Deckard is a replicant, but he was human in the novel, the screenwriter wrote him as human, and Harrison Ford also thougt he was human and it seems to me like he played that way. And the execs also wanted him to be human, apparently. This explains the ambiguousness, I’d say.


Ryan Gosling recently confirmed that Villeneuve and Deakins’ Blade Runner sequel is his next project. I didn’t care for Prisoners, but Enemy and Sicario are two of the best films of the past decade. Here’s hoping it’s great!


Yes, it’s totally unambiguous that he’s a replicant in the director’s cut (there’s no other way to explain the ending, plus it’s fully consistent with the thematic and literal foreshadowing in previous scenes, specially Rachel’s memories). It’s not even that subtle, and better for it.

HOWEVER, in the original theatrical release Deckard is unambiguously not a replicant (it is also a much more boring (imho) and less interesting movie, not necessarily because of the change in Deckard’s identity, but because the VO robs the movie of enough of those quiet contemplative moments that are the main strength of the movie as to irreparably damage it. And the atrocious happy ending is the less earned happy ending in film history -short of the kid being alive at the end of War of the Worlds, another scene I believe -or rather hope- was added after main photography finished-. yes, these are hyperboles…)

Rant aside, the question is which movie the sequel will be a sequel to. Theatrical or director’s cut. I’m guessing the answer to this question might actually be the main reveal of the movie.





Please tell me this is a real thing. Ah, they’re all listed on IMDB. Man, what a dream team. They even have Hampton Fancher down as one of the writers.

Oh man, that’s an excellent point. But with Villeneuve directing, I’m fine either way.



This is terrible news, because what if that means Tom is [I]always[/I] wrong about shooting down Ridley Scott rumors and we [I]are[/I] getting a Prometheus 2?


We are getting a Prometheus 2; they are just calling it Alien: Covenant.


Shhhh, we all know that but Tom’s still in denial, and I don’t blame him!


I am less interested in this movie than Prometheus 2: Alien 5: Return of the Head of the Robot. Because I actually am kind of interested in that one. Where do you go with a sequel to Blade Runner?


On the other hand, that might mean Neil Blomkamp Alien.


Apparently Scott is only a producer on this because he’s going to be busy with directing Alien: Covenant. So assuming A:C was actually happening in the first place (which some of us are more convinced of than others, and what I was trying to make a joke about) this Blade Runner 2 news won’t directly affect it much and Blomkamp’s Alien is still dead.


Well, for what it’s worth, I never said there won’t be a Prometheus 2 or Blade Runner sequel. What I did is call out rumors as rumors. Some people take shameless blog clickbait at face value when they could easily verify whether the information is also available from a reliable source, [I]such as the studio who would be paying for the movie[/I].

Still, I’m surprised there’s going to be a Prometheus 2. A Blade Runner follow-up I can understand. But a Prometheus 2? Really, Fox? I guess that’s the point of rebranding it more obviously as an Alien movie. Fox figures it can avoid some of Prometheus’ mistakes.



While the crazy ass cesarean was gruesomely cool, David was easily the best part of Prometheus. If the studio is insistent on having a sequel (or it is contractually required for some reason) it makes sense to build the movie around him.


Hey, I heard that! You talked about this in the Z for Zachariah movie podcast. You can’t fool me!

Ugh, I honestly thought “Deckard is a replicant” was kind of tacked on at the end as a kind of “what if” ending. I thought it was intentionally ambiguous. If it’s the only “official” interpretation, I kinda feel worse about the movie in general… this leaves plot holes the size of elephants in the story. But since Blade Runner is decades old, I see the Internet has already had a grand ol’ time back and forth trying to pretend it all makes sense, so I’ll leave it at that.

Guess we’ll see what Blade Runner 2: Revengeance has to say about it.


If we speculate that the whole thing was set up by Tyrrell to see if a replicant can hunt other replicants, wouldn’t that pretty much patch over any plot holes? I haven’t seen it in a while, so I could be wrong.



It’s been so long that I may have imagined it. Didn’t Deckard’s eyes glow red like a replicant’s in one scene?