Author Topic: Blade Runner  (Read 3843 times)

pigamus

  • Member
  • **
  • Sex, death, mayonnaise.
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #90 on: March 12, 2021, 06:54:10 AM »
Luv? Like, ee, Luv, are you one of them t’replicants, well I’ll go to the foot of our stairs?

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #91 on: March 12, 2021, 07:09:48 AM »
...though to be fair her character may have have been a similar case to the Terminator sequels, where Schwarzenegger would only come back so long as he was the star and there was no threat of the bad guy running away with a sequel the way he'd done with the original Terminator.

I don't understand what you mean.  I’ve never heard anyone from the production side of Terminator say that Arnie stipulated that he’d only return for the sequels, providing that they purposefully stifle the antagonist (besides, the T-1000 was plenty iconic).  Even if that did happen with the Terminator sequels, what does that have to do with the antagonist of Blade Runner 2049?  Surely you can't be suggesting that Harrison Ford (who's star power had faded significantly by the time of the movie, it should be noted) only agreed to return if the antagonist was made uninteresting?
« Last Edit: March 12, 2021, 09:05:35 AM by St_Eddie »

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #92 on: March 12, 2021, 09:23:23 AM »
I did think that the origami unicorn seemed like an awfully convenient coincidence, if the dream footage wasn't an intended part of the film - even if Scott just really liked unicorns. Now I know better.
This, very poorly paraphrased, bit was actually decent:That's it, though.

I am not sure quotable lines is a particularly good judge of the quality of a film anyway. Lots of great films have no quotable lines and lots of shit has the odd good line that has fallen into the cultural vernacular

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #93 on: March 12, 2021, 09:51:28 AM »
I don't understand what you mean.  I’ve never heard anyone from the production side of Terminator say that Arnie stipulated that he’d only return for the sequels, providing that they purposefully stifle the antagonist (besides, the T-1000 was plenty iconic).  Even if that did happen with the Terminator sequels, what does that have to do with the antagonist of Blade Runner 2049?  Surely you can't be suggesting that Harrison Ford (who's star power had faded significantly by the time of the movie, it should be noted) only agreed to return if the antagonist was made uninteresting?

I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that when you have a film that has its two biggest stars in "good guy" roles that somewhere along the line someone in production might suggest that they be given the lions share of the decent scenes and dialogue. That needn't have meant they deliberately wrote Luv to be uninteresting - just that Ford and Gosling had to be more interesting at all times.

Harrison Ford's star power may have faded, but they still wanted to get him back in a sequel to one of his most iconic roles so they're hardly going to say "take it or leave it". In his heyday Ford was known for having writers he'd bring in on at least some projects to make sure his character was written to suit his persona (and he was hardly alone there) - again, it's hardly controversial to think that a star like him, who would certainly have approval over the script, might want to make sure that he wasn't left playing third fiddle after Gosling and The Bad Guy.


I am not sure quotable lines is a particularly good judge of the quality of a film anyway. Lots of great films have no quotable lines and lots of shit has the odd good line that has fallen into the cultural vernacular

I agree (and really shouldn't have been banging on about this so much) - it just seemed odd to me that while Blade Runner is (in part) known for having memorable lines, BR 2049 seemed designed not to have any. But I guess it's to its credit that it doesn't have a bunch of shit lines delivered in such a way to make it obvious they were meant to become classics.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #94 on: March 12, 2021, 10:21:58 AM »
Another time to die

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #95 on: March 12, 2021, 10:23:53 AM »
I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that when you have a film that has its two biggest stars in "good guy" roles that somewhere along the line someone in production might suggest that they be given the lions share of the decent scenes and dialogue. That needn't have meant they deliberately wrote Luv to be uninteresting - just that Ford and Gosling had to be more interesting at all times.

Harrison Ford's star power may have faded, but they still wanted to get him back in a sequel to one of his most iconic roles so they're hardly going to say "take it or leave it". In his heyday Ford was known for having writers he'd bring in on at least some projects to make sure his character was written to suit his persona (and he was hardly alone there) - again, it's hardly controversial to think that a star like him, who would certainly have approval over the script, might want to make sure that he wasn't left playing third fiddle after Gosling and The Bad Guy.

...or the characters simply weren't engaging and interesting enough because the script wasn't up to snuff.

I know which seems like the most likely scenario to me.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #96 on: March 12, 2021, 11:26:43 AM »

And then Roy Batty's final speech is on a whole 'nother level beyond that. It's bizarre to me that the makers of 2049 thought that in a sequel to Blade Runner the merely creepy and casually murderous Luv was going to be a suitable antagonist - though to be fair her character may have have been a similar case to the Terminator sequels, where Schwarzenegger would only come back so long as he was the star and there was no threat of the bad guy running away with a sequel the way he'd done with the original Terminator.
It's sort of been said, but the T-1000 was even more menacing and scarier than Arnie was in the original. Not quite as iconic but just as good a villain, if not better.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #97 on: March 12, 2021, 11:32:45 AM »
It appears to be hard to make a really good villain, as shown by how many otherwise good films can fail at it. Even the ones that succeed are often more luck than judgement (Batty being a good example)

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #98 on: March 12, 2021, 11:35:20 AM »
It's sort of been said, but the T-1000 was even more menacing and scarier than Arnie was in the original. Not quite as iconic but just as good a villain, if not better.
Probably helped he was played by someone with acting chops, rather than a bodybuilder. The T-1000 was also a lot more convincing as an assassin - I never quite got how a huge slab of muscle could be a convincing 'infiltration' unit in a post-nuclear apocalypse world. Arnie was ideal to play a machine, but Patrick was able to do stuff like those creepy smiles very effectively.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #99 on: March 12, 2021, 11:36:48 AM »
The villain in the sequel should have been Roy's mum Nora.

Blumf

  • Not long now
    • IGNORE ME!!!
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #100 on: March 12, 2021, 11:50:34 AM »
The villain in the sequel should have been Roy's mum Nora.

Deckard, Gaff, and K, rolling down a hill in a bathtub.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #101 on: March 12, 2021, 11:58:53 AM »
Probably helped he was played by someone with acting chops, rather than a bodybuilder. The T-1000 was also a lot more convincing as an assassin - I never quite got how a huge slab of muscle could be a convincing 'infiltration' unit in a post-nuclear apocalypse world. Arnie was ideal to play a machine, but Patrick was able to do stuff like those creepy smiles very effectively.

It's interesting how in the director's cut the T-1000 basically vanishes for the middle chunk of the film - there's no suggestion that he's even searching for them or tracking down other contacts, whereas the Terminator in the first film is a constant presence. Patrick did a great job creating a really memorable villain in a role with hardly any dialogue (and was definitely much more convincing as an infiltration unit to Arnie's walking tank), but it's always clear that the "Terminator 2" the title is referencing is Arnold's model.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #102 on: March 12, 2021, 12:13:38 PM »
...but it's always clear that the "Terminator 2" the title is referencing is Arnold's model.

Arnie did a bang up job when it came to portraying the character named Terminator 2: Judgment Day.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #103 on: March 12, 2021, 12:24:47 PM »
It's interesting how in the director's cut the T-1000 basically vanishes for the middle chunk of the film - there's no suggestion that he's even searching for them or tracking down other contacts
I suppose he was out of options, given his one lead (Sarah) had escaped and the Connors/T800 had gone off grid. Just had to wait around and hope they turned up again. I do wonder if after they drove off, he had the robotic version of thinking "well, I've proper fucked up here".

Blumf

  • Not long now
    • IGNORE ME!!!
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #104 on: March 12, 2021, 12:30:16 PM »
I do wonder if after they drove off, he had the robotic version of thinking "well, I've proper fucked up here".

Looked at himself in the mirror whilst wagging his finger.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #105 on: March 12, 2021, 08:00:46 PM »
It's interesting how in the director's cut the T-1000 basically vanishes for the middle chunk of the film - there's no suggestion that he's even searching for them or tracking down other contacts, whereas the Terminator in the first film is a constant presence. Patrick did a great job creating a really memorable villain in a role with hardly any dialogue (and was definitely much more convincing as an infiltration unit to Arnie's walking tank), but it's always clear that the "Terminator 2" the title is referencing is Arnold's model.

The original idea for the first film was I believe Lance Henrickson as the Terminator so the T-1000 was you could argue a bit of a return to that, a more normal sized man who looked a little "off" with a serial killer vibe, literally a slasher machine in this case I spose.

I would say Arnie works first time around though as the film isn't really going for grounded realism, LA kind of feels halfway to judgement day already as a seedy urban apocalypse so Arnies hulking monster feels like part of the landscape. The sequel I think ends up being a bit more down to earth in its setting so Patrick fits rather better and Arnie not fitting it gets plays for comedy a little.

St_Eddie

  • LIKES: Deviled eggs DISLIKES: The Devil & bad eggs
    • St_Eddie's YouTube Channel
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #106 on: March 12, 2021, 09:10:25 PM »
The original idea for the first film was I believe Lance Henrickson as the Terminator so the T-1000 was you could argue a bit of a return to that, a more normal sized man who looked a little "off" with a serial killer vibe, literally a slasher machine in this case I spose.

Talking of serial killer vibes; Mike Medavoy, the studio head of Orion Pictures at the time, suggested to James Cameron that he cast O.J. Simpson as the Terminator...

Quote
Medavoy called the director and said, "'Are you sitting down? I've got this movie cast: O.J. Simpson as The Terminator and Arnold Schwarzenegger as (Kyle) Reese.'"

Cameron had this to say about the possibility of Simpson starring in the movie, "(Producer and co-screenwriter) Gale Hurd and I looked at each other like that was the stupidest thing we'd ever heard in our lives. And I told him on that phone call, 'It's not O.J. Simpson. We're not doing that'"

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #107 on: March 12, 2021, 11:13:59 PM »
I'd say OJ as the Terminator is nowhere near as daft as Arnie being Reese.

"Ja, the future is hard when we are hunted day and night, but luckily I still have access to the gym and plenty of protein shakes. And steroids."

Replies From View

  • Rubbing linseed oil into the school cormorant.
  • Golden Member
  • *****
  • Gargoyles have milk bags.
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #108 on: March 13, 2021, 10:05:25 AM »
Yeah I think the original is packed with great ideas, performances, visuals, music etc but somehow amounts to less than the sum of its parts. A Ridley Scott work, through and through. The sequel works better for me as a film. I'd have loved to have heard Johan Johansson's score for the project though.

What do you think of 2010: The Year We Made Contact?

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #109 on: April 01, 2021, 07:16:04 PM »
What do you think of 2010: The Year We Made Contact?

I haven't seen it but Helen Mirren in space? Sign me up

Tags: