ALCON Say Harrison Ford NOT Attached To New BLADE RUNNER Movie

Deckard's a replicant. They don't age. How Ford could be involved is beyond me. Except if he played the human that the Deckard model was based on...

Except fo the fact that he IS a replicant and that was solidified when Ridley Scott himself explained so in the Blade Runner documentary on the BluRay.

This movie doesn't need a sequel or a prequels, it was a great adaptation from a great book and Hollywood needs to learn to write new material instead or trying to turn everything into a franchise!

Ford's been phoning it in since Six Days Seven Nights!

He was so bad in KOTCS that I think I saw his bluetooth in a few scenes!

He's never been one for the public spotlight and way back when it was cool because he put himself in his characters and they were unique. I think he's just grown into a different person because the guy I see in the movies now is not the same guy I idolized as a kid. The guy I looked up to as a kid was an a$$hole, but cool and macho. The guy now is just an old cranky washed up d*uche-bag who thinks he IS characters he portrays and forgets to act.

That being said, It's not that Ford is not going to be in the new Blade Runner, the movie has not been developed enough to determine the cast, plus let's face it with Ford's input in movies lately (KOTCS) I don't think it's something the audience or producers really want.

So, Mr. Ford, do us all a favor and remember who you are and where you came from, because you've lost your appeal. Then again, I doubt you would lower yourself to read these postings anyway...

deckard IS a replicant.

he IS.

he has "memories" of an ex-wife for the same reason rachel had memories of terrel's niece:
they were programmed.
deckard is an experiment replicant just as much as rachel is.
asa matter of fact, terrel is a replicant. they didnt have time/$ to film the "reveal" but terrel was dead in cryogenics and batty finds the body after killing the terrel replicant.
(see: "dangerous days" )
gaffe KNEW deckard was, he knew deckard dreamed of a unicorn. he even said '.. are you sure you are a man?"


now, having ford in the movie could still work, after all "arnold" had a cameo in terminator salvation- so maybe we have a cg deckard voiced by harrison. or maybe he could play the engineer who designed deckard.

deckard.
is.
a.
replicant.

additionally, the script/editing vagaries as to the number of "missing replicants" is completely irrelevant.
IRRELEVANT.

the number of fugitive replicants in the various edits us an artifact of editing errors and the decision to cut a scene with one of the replicant 'expiring" in the first act.

deckard was not "missing" or fugitive, everyone knew EXACTLY where he was at all times.
just as rachel - who certainly was replicant - was not among the "missing" replicants.


case closed.

Oh and I have to laugh at the dismissals of the theatrical cut. Dude whether you, they, or anyone else likes it that was the cut they released first and EVERYONE's first exposure to the movie. You telling me you weren't a fan before Scott released his director's cut? I sure was. Yeah the happy ending was way out of place even watching it as a child but that was the movie, for better or worse. So yes I'm "hanging" Deckard being human in that cut. You cab hang him being a replicant in the newer versions, I'll believe what I want to believe:)

Thats soooo weird..... One of the greatest actors of our past generation, doesnt want to be in your movie. Riddle me that Batman. Guess another reboot in 30 years. Actors need to start reading scripts, before taking roles.

Haven't you read anything I've written? I'm not trying to prove him wrong, I'm saying nothing is CERTAIN. Scott himself initially said he wanted it ambiguous, then that he erred on the side of him being human, then only after his second Ultimate Director's cut or whatever he called it, that he was sure he was a replicant. Flip flopping all over the place. Whereas the writer always envisioned him as human, with hints that he MIGHT not be. That's what I'm taking it as.

And Ror, very solid arguments there.

I think, still, that Blade Runner is one of those movies that can be really be called Artistic. Art in a meaning that YOU have to find some answers.

Just like watching an abstract painting. Of course the author had his ideas, but it's your job to find out for yourself your own interpretation of it.

BTW, I remember watching the theatrical version and finding Deckard's bright eyes with Rachel very odd, and a hint he *could* be something else. Or not. Maybe that's what you said, he's less human as he kills, he's more a machine than those he hunt. Maybe that's all he hinted there. But maybe not. :)

that said, i appreciate anyone who has a passion for this film- whether we agree or not (i have hours long debates with close friends on the matter LOL!) and i know we are very eager to see ridley revisit this world.

Deckard being a replicant adds nothing to the story. In fact it takes away from the replicant hunting human falling for his prey. Originally Deckard was meant to be human and thats all their is to it. If Scott wants to pull a Lucas card and tinker than thats just fine. I remember the old interviews with Ford and Scott during the premiere and the idea that Deckard was a replicant simply was not in the concept. Its like Dumbldor being gay now because the author suddenly decides after the fact that hes gay....why? Deckard's Character was originally meant to emulate the old time detectives like Humphrey Bogart would play in the old noir films complete with narration but set in a future landscape period. I hate it when directors pull this kind of crap...very pretentious.

have to disagree on a few levels:

ridley is considerably a better filmmaker than george lucas, and when ridley revisits a film (blade runner, alien, or gladiator) he only wants to improve it- not "gimmick" it and he NEVER says that his preffered edition should be the ONLY one available.
he's also nowhere as crass commercially.

secondly, deckard being a replicant does not at all diminish the story. a lot of "he's human" advocates believe that the "moral" of the story hinges deckard's "humanity" in a metaphorical sense as he has to reconcile brutal killing with the fact that these replicants can't help what/who they are.

all well and good, but that's only a microcosm. as with films like "matrix(and animatrix)" "i, robot" "ST:TMP" and others the bigger metaphysical argument is what constitutes "life".
are replicants "alive" ? or are they sophisticated machines that EMULATE life? what really is the diffrence?
what does it say about us, that we would build such things? a god complex?
what kind of society is cavalier about "pleasure models" ? have human relationships deteriorated so badly? rutger hauer himself weighed in on this- he compared deckard falling in love with rachel to a woman falling in love with a vibrator! (read sammon's book!) according to hauer replicants or only utilitarian devices. maybe he's right. but again- what does it say about us?
does making robot soldiers to wage war make us more benign,or does it make us insensitive and blunt to the horror of war?
do robot laborers make life better or take people out of the work force?

these, and others are the existential questions that "blade runner" offers and the "deckard-HAS-to-be-human-for-the-story-to-work" arguement doesn't really approach these broader concepts.

it's a FUN debate to have, but the scope of the narrative and depth don't hinge on it.