Soldier was written by David Peoples, who co-wrote the script for Blade Runner. By his own admission, he considers Soldier to be a "sidequel"/spiritual successor to Blade Runner. It also obliquely references various elements of stories written by Philip K. Dick (who wrote the novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", on which Blade Runner is based), or film adaptations thereof. A "Spinner" vehicle from Blade Runner can be seen in the wreckage on a junk planet that features in the film.
There are also several dialogue references to events such as "Tanhauser Gate" from Blade Runner.
You even said it yourself...Batman...James Bond...these are franchises, not remakes. They've been making sequel upon sequel for years and years.
Blade Runner is a standalone film and arguably the greatest science fiction movie ever made.
Also, the only thing Ford really voiced his displeasure about regarding the original cut was the narration that they made him do. Ford and Rutger Hauer were pissed about the Director's cut, where Ridley Scott basically confirmed that Deckard was a replicant which Ford and Hauer believed totally screwed with one of the greatest ending scenes in film history. The whole "tears in rain" scene delivers a lot less impact if it was nothing more than two androids fighting eachother.
Remake Total Recall. Remake Dune. Remake Invasion of the Body Snatchers for the umpteenth time.
But don't lay a goddamn finger on Blade Runner.
As for actors/directors saying what they think, thats fine. Everyone has an opinion. Btu teh film itself should not say so for usre, and I don't think it does. It's up to each to decide what they think about Deckard.
Same way Total Recall should have ended, Soprano Style, right when Arnold gets that "uh oh" look on his face and says something like "this could be just a dream" at the end of the Mars bit at films end. We, the viewer, should never know for sure if what Arnold experienced was real, or if really was all just an implanted memory.
Same is an Minority Report. We, the viewer, should always have some doubts if that big happy ending where Tom Cruise gets his wife back, stops the bad guy, and the precogs get to live in peace on a lake is real.....or just teh happy dream pumped into a now-comotose Cruise serving his (wrongful) sentence after he's put into that wierd-lloking stacking prion thingy.
It is that very unsurety of reality that is the core of Dick's writing.
Last edited by Warfish; 06-27-2012 at 02:52 PM.
Although it is heavily implied in the Director's Cut of Blade Runner that Deckard was indeed a replicant.
Ford falls asleep drunk at the piano and has a dream about a unicorn. Then at the end, Gaff leaves an origami unicorn in Deckard's apartment implying that he has implanted dreams and memories and that he is in fact a replicant.
Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer were and still are pissed at Ridley Scott to this day.
If you remake Total Recall, there's the chance (however small it may be) that it could surpass the original, especially if it is more faithful to the source material.
If you remake Blade Runner, there's no damn way that it will even come within a lightyear of the original. It would only tarnish the original films legacy. This is new-school Hollywood that we're talking about. I have no interest in seeing someone like Michael Bay give us his vision of Blade Runner with Channing Tatum as Deckard and Ben Affleck as Roy Batty.
And Hollywood can't allow a $500MM blockbuster remake get away because it might tarnish a legacy.
And because of the immense respect people have for the original, they aren't going to give it to Bay with Channing Tatum and Ben Affleck.
How about Guy Pierce as Deckard and Jeremy Renner as Roy Batty?
As great as it is, it's still dated. I'll let you know how the new one is
And one last point, if ever there was a genre ripe for remakes, it's sci-fi--our vision of the future is a lot different now then it was 30 years ago and the technology for bringing a newer vision of the future is so much better than it was 30 years ago.
You don't redo The Godfather or Shawshank, because they are historical lookbacks at the past, which doesn't change (other than our perception of it).
Looking into the future is constantly evolving.
Lucas took a shot with the prequels with newer and more advanced technology, and they sucked ass and will never hold a candle to the original trilogy.
Newer isn't always better.