No, no, nooo. Can Hollywood just leave one classic alone? Just one? Fuck this.
No, no, nooo. Can Hollywood just leave one classic alone? Just one? Fuck this.
Agreed. Forget about the tacked-on crappy ending on the 1982 release. The ending of the director's cut, when Rachel and Deckard head out to the unknown is perfect. Just leave it there. We don't know what happens to these characters, it's left to the viewer to ponder. A sequel will spoil that.
Given the unsettling parallels between that character's arc and some real-life whackos that I've encountered (both in news headlines and online), the backstory actually makes that story even more unsettling. Like, say if one of those neckbearded MRA dudes got into a position of power because he showed talent or prowess in something unrelated... he could turn into the next Hitler/Vader, if propped up and enabled by toadying political Machiavellites.
Anyway...
I really don't see the need to trot out this argument again, especially since it looks like this is going to be a straight sequel to the original story and prequels are a whole different kettle of fish. Watch the sequel if you're interested, or don't. It's pretty simple. The "integrity" of the original doesn't live or die by whether or not derivative works exist. The somewhat clunky '90s Blade Runner PC game is cool, but does the fact that a blatant cash-in Commodore 64/ZX Spectrum game from the '80s still float around out there with the name Blade Runner on it make the movie any less good? No, of course not. See also: the book sequels mentioned above... do those impact the integrity of the film? Or can you safely ignore them?
Last edited by botley; 03-04-2015 at 07:28 PM.