What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Follow the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Twitter view!
twitter.com/DragonAge - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
55 Comments
- AndrewDB, on 06/06/2009, -0/+14This could be awesome, or it could be horrific.
PLEASE. For the love of everything that is good, be awesome. - banderwocky, on 06/05/2009, -1/+15bad-fricken-ass!
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -0/+12I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Franchises that don't overstay their welcome. Classic Sci-fi flicks untarnished by unnecessary and probably sub-par extensions. All of these moments will be lost. In time. Like tears. In. Rain...
- add1802, on 06/06/2009, -0/+7wow i got almost that exact text message from my ex last time i tried to see her...
- arc100, on 06/06/2009, -1/+8http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7o0rvVxU0w
How about Ridley Scott trying to convince you? - inactive, on 06/06/2009, -1/+7Please don't. Just leave it. Please. Some things are just so good the way they are they just need to be left alone.
- sir1real, on 06/06/2009, -0/+5It sounds like none of you bothered to RTFA.
"...Purefold enables participating brands to take an alternative route to brand integration than traditional product placement and embrace invention within a narrative framework."
Does this clear things up for you? - samard2002, on 06/06/2009, -0/+5Come on guys. Good sci-fi always benefits from sequels. You know, like The Matrix or Star Wars or... um...
- damack, on 06/06/2009, -0/+5I was genuinely frightened when I heard they were going near my beloved Blade Runner.
Especially when they were talking about a prequel to Blade Runner or another movie but with Ridley Scott involved I'm all for it. - quantax, on 06/06/2009, -1/+6I like the complete lack of mention of Philip K Dick. Ridley Scott made a so-so adaptation of the book which is only good by movie standards. How about we go back to the original material instead of the watered down movie version.
- T8erT0T, on 06/06/2009, -0/+4We need you Deck. This is a bad one, the worst yet. We need the ole' Blade Runner. We need your magic.
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -0/+4More info is needed
- Networktwenty3, on 06/06/2009, -0/+4I'd like to see another Blade Runner game, the one from Westwood Studios was not bad at all.
- frieddonuts, on 06/06/2009, -0/+4then move along, mr. troll.
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -1/+4How else would Gaff know about the significance of the unicorn if Deckard wasn't an android who's memories could be accessed?
- sonnybobiche, on 06/06/2009, -0/+3This is only acceptable if Ridley Scott is INTIMATELY involved, as in directs and writes several of the episodes. A hands-off producer type of approach won't do.
- drgmdp, on 06/06/2009, -0/+3blade runner+interwebs=automatic digg
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -0/+3Let me get this straight: Deckard dreams of unicorn, Gaff leaves him an origami one, Deckard nods slightly, as if he just had a revelation, and it was a coincidence? This movie was in production for years, and they decided to throw these unicorn symbols in just show these characters were experiencing a coincidence?
- CharlieHotel, on 06/06/2009, -0/+3He's saying that the Blade Runner bears only a passing resemblance to the original novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and when the two are compared the movie comes out on the short end of the stick. As does every movie made from a Phillip Dick novel (Total Recall, A Scanner Darkly, Minority Report, etc...)
- Jektal, on 06/06/2009, -0/+3Thank you. This is the only reason I came into this thread. They make it sound like Ridley Scott was some great creative writer.
- Kidddrunkadelic, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2Alien prequel, Blade Runner web series?
Is Sir Ridley trying to relive the good times?
Just let the classic be. - sonnybobiche, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2Please make sure you weren't watching the theatrical version (with narration).
- GalacticXenu, on 06/07/2009, -0/+2No, the whole idea challenges what being human or andriod is--if you can't tell the difference yourself, does it matter?
- audiorage18, on 06/06/2009, -1/+3@ Warty,
You have it completely wrong- Deckard being a replicant greatly increases the overall message of the movie (the thin line between android and human and where humanity is defined). - smord, on 06/06/2009, -1/+3The older cuts of the movie were a bit ambiguous about it but the recent director's cut makes it very obvious that he's a replicant.
- smord, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2It's a moody film with slower pacing and subtlety, and it's one of too few films in recent decades that actually makes the viewer think. If you can't appreciate a movie that isn't filled with explosions and chase scenes, that's your fault and your loss.
- charlietuna, on 06/08/2009, -0/+2Messing with Bladerunner is like messing with Shakespeare. I'm sure some people would want to see Romeo and Juliet -- the series, I would rather savor the original as a story with an ending that is all about possibilities tinged with a little fear.
- Hewbie, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2hmm kinda like Total Recall 2070 http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0159920/ lol shame it only lasted one season :(
- Culyt, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2CreativeCommons != OpenSource.
Unless they are going to let people download the non-edited original footage, VisualEffects data files and so on, sound tracks and so on.
But I agree that it should have been mentioned in the headline, but there probably wasn't room. - BabyWookie, on 06/06/2009, -1/+3Go watch Star Trek 90210 again, cretin.
- dstz, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2Web series. Makes as much sense as the commercial we have here that calls you a "Poet 2.0" for sending pictures with your phone.
With all due respect, he should work on a game if he wants to do something interesting for computer literate people. - inactive, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2It has to be a coincidence because Deckard *cannot* be a Replicant.
It would be absurd to make a replicant Blade Runner who is *weaker* than the skin jobs he is trying to capture. Deckard is repeatedly beaten up and bested by the replicants. There is no good reason to make a replicant Blade Runner who is weaker than his prey. Period.
The fact that Scott and Ford both disagree over the matter is evidence that it was never decided during production whether Deckard was replicant, the unicorn motif notwithstanding. You just have to find another explanation for the unicorn.
The original novel uses the question for moral ambiguity within the story, but it is stated he is not a replicant.
The ending of Blade Runner has *no impact* if Deckard is a replicant, because then it would just be two replicants running off together, instead of the much more meaningful human falling in love with a replicant. The whole movie is about empathy between humans and replicants, bridging the gap between them. At the end he realizes that there is no intrinsic difference between replicants and humans, and skin jobs deserve a shot at life just like we do. This is the revelation that Deckard receives.
If Deckard is a replicant, it destroys this. - Pegritz, on 06/06/2009, -0/+2This could either be glorious or hideous. I'm certainly hoping for the former, though fearing the latter. Doesn't matter if it's good or bad, though, I'm gonna be sampling the ***** out of it for a new batch of songs!
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1Why are judging it based on what you mistakenly thought it was supposed to be instead of judging it for what it is?
- Networktwenty3, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1The unicorn was the hint that he was a replicant, why else would there have been a unicorn dream, and the unicorn at the end... Also the unicorn is included in the special edition box set of Blade Runner, so there is significance.
But from what I just read on this article I have no idea what they are talking about. - energyx, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1one could see it as a coincidence but i think a connection existing between them (deckard was a replicant) would make for a richer movie - just my opinion.
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -1/+2The writer of the screenplay probably knows more about the actual intention of the story, rather than the director, who interprets it.
Scott decided after the fact that Deckard is a replicant. It's a cute idea, but it's clear it was not definitively decided during production. Harrison Ford disagrees with Scott, always has, and he was there, so that indicates it was not decided at any time during filming.
Blade Runner means nothing at all if Deckard is a replicant, irrespective of Scott's opinion on the matter. That may appear to be absurd, but if you think about it, it's true. - GalacticXenu, on 06/06/2009, -1/+2I can't believe people are trying to argue against this. The Director's Cut makes it clear that he was a replicant. He says so himself. End of story. If you don't like the intention of the directory go write some fanfiction or something.
- Sornos, on 06/06/2009, -3/+4Seconding this. From a logical point of view it would be extremely unlikely that Deckard would be a replicant.
- StanleyKoolPrik, on 06/06/2009, -1/+2Sir Washed-Up Old Whore.
Think English George Lucas. - valleyvideo, on 06/06/2009, -1/+2Key word missing from description:
OPEN_SOURCE - djurbino, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1The screenwriter interprets the book and writes a screenplay. The director interprets the screenplay and directs a movie. The actor interprets the directions and acts.
So clearly Harrison Ford is in a better position to interpret the intent of the story than the director.
"That may appear to be absurd, but if you think about it, it's true."
It does appear absurd.
And thinking about something does not make it true. - deetank, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1Fa real. I always hate the lack of credit given to Philip K. Dick whenever his adaptations are discussed.
- deetank, on 06/07/2009, -0/+1Never heard about this show. The main character's name is David Hume, lols.
- hibou2121, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1A new venture is exciting, is it not? Blade Runner rules!!! I think it is worth looking into...we need mythology these days, more than ever!
- MiddleOfNowhere, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1@ CharlieHotel: Amen. Even after 27 years, Blade Runner is my favorite movie. But it will never top the complexity of the themes developed in "Do Androids...". But then, we probably shouldn't compare apples and oranges.
- analogkid01, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1But audiorage, if Deckard is a replicant, then there *is* no line. It's just two Replicants, rather than the stickier question of a human-replicant relationship.
- diskape, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1Terminator 2, Alien 2, X-Men 2, Spider-Man 2, Evil Dead sequels ain't bad at all. Empire Strikes Back was a sequel (I know you meant new trilogy but still), Wrath of Khan.. heck Toy Story 2 ^_^ Temple of Doom.. list goes on.
I don't mind seeing sequels, even if they're bad I'll simply stick with the original, negating other movies in the series (as I personally do with Star Wars).
And after all... as for as I understand they are making short films set in Blade Runner's world (or set in the same "idea"), not a direct sequel. I'll def check them out. BR is one of my favorite movies of all time. - X9001, on 06/06/2009, -0/+1I don't really have a problem with prequels or sequels just so long as they don't suck
- inactive, on 06/06/2009, -0/+0
The movie makes at clear that replicants are fitted with different levels of strength and intelligence, so of course Deckard is weaker, don't you think it would be suspicious if were able to punch through a wall?
If there truly is no intrinsic difference between humans, it shouldn't make Deckard and Rachael's romance any less poingnant.Besides, he still falls for her despite his biased perspective of a human who's job it is to kill replicants. -
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is