Blade Runner Revisted

[thepaulo]

http://scoop.today.com/_news/2011/08/18/7408886-turn-back-the-clock-to-a-future-with-no-blade-runner-remakes

Ridley Scott wants to visit the future again but doesn't know if it should be a sequel or prequel

(I suggest a sequel since the film took place in 2019)

[booster11373]

So in 10-15 years we can expect multiple versions?

[disneyspy]

gbaby already filled us in

[cougarjake13]

ah if we get stuck with a prequel then we'll prob get a cgi harry ford like bridges in tron

[furie]

not a sequel or prequel. they should do an equal. same universe, but not touching on the same characters.

[KnoxHarrington]

A more faithful adaptation of the original Dick novel might be interesting.

Notice I didn't say "good." But...interesting.

[Crash]

not a sequel or prequel. they should do an equal. same universe, but not touching on the same characters.

A more faithful adaptation of the original Dick novel might be interesting.

Notice I didn't say "good." But...interesting.

I agree with both of these. I love the movie but the novel has a much different feel and a film adaptation could be real interesting. Apparently there were also three sequels to the novel (written by Dick's friend) published. Haven't read them but they could be the basis for a good movie.

Anybody here read any of the sequels?

[fezident]

I think I saw Blade Runner once or twice in the mid-80ies when it was on HBO. I was just a kid then so, the plot and the themes of the movie definitely went right over my head.
I just watched the "final cut" version, which is the only version that is approved by Ridley Scott, and it left me kinda cold.
I have a million questions.

For anybody that knows the movie really well, please explain the following:

Near the beginning of the movie, we see Gaff (Edward James Olmos) make a couple of small origami figures. He makes a little paper chicken and later he makes a little matchstick man.
In the middle of the movie, we see Deckard (Harrison Ford) have a dream about a unicorn.
At the end of the movie, Deckard goes to his apartment... and he finds on the floor a little origami unicorn.

This is SUPPOSED to mean something to Deckard. It's supposed to indicate to him that Gaff is aware of Deckard's (implanted) memories, just as Deckard is aware of Rachael's memories... and therefore... Deckard must be a replicant.

My problem is; Deckard doesn't know that Gaff makes little origami figures. Only WE know that. Deckard does not. Gaff doesn't make the figures in front of Deckard. Only the audience sees Gaff make them.
Therefore... finding the unicorn on the floor wouldn't automatically mean "Gaff's been here!" to Deckard. If anything... Deckard should assume that Rachael made the unicorn.
That would make a lot more sense.
They're both replicants.... and it's quite possible that they could both have the some of the same implanted memories.
If Gaff had been to the apartment while Rachael was there... why would he let her live?? What is gained by NOT killing her? And what is gained by not killing Deckard?!? His JOB is tracking and killing replicants. Why go to Deckard's apartment at all?!


Also,
Why/how does Batty (Rutger Hauer) die?
It's never really explained.
He's nowhere near the end of his four year life-span. He's only two years old.
And yet... he just sits down and dies.
Are we supposed to assume that the fight with Deckard kinda drained his batteries? That doesn't really make sense, seeing as he was a replicant that was specifically designed for combat & hard labor.


Anybody?

Anybody??