HERE'S WHY. AND HOW IT CAN BE DONE.
Sean Young as advanced replicant Rachael, possibly Nexus 7.
THEMATICALLY & CINEMATICALLY:YOU DON'T MAKE A SECOND BLADE RUNNER FILM WITHOUT THE RACHAEL CHARACTER
THEMATICALLY, CINEMATICALLY, & MORALLY:YOU DON'T MAKE A SECOND BLADE RUNNER FILM WITHOUT SEAN YOUNG
YOU - JUST - DON'T
"Hollywood has become an unfortunate situation where art and commerce...are at odds, and art is sort of like an endangered species...."
As a philosopher, I would supplement Ms. Young's powerful and accurate observation this way: 1.) strike the qualifier "sort of like," and 2.) add 'ego' to what art is at odds with.
"The only thing really "relevant" in hollywood today is that it's high level participants don't feel responsible for high ideals. Honesty is a liability."
- - - - -
-- "Martin," Entertainment Columnist, dlisted.com, April 03, 2016
- - - - -
“It’s a pretty dark world...” ... “How many decent human beings do you meet these days?”
Messrs. Kosove, Johnson, Scott, Villeneuve, Yorkin, Fancher, and even Ford
YOU'RE MAKING THE WRONG MOVIE.
Read this site carefully and you'll understand exactly what I'm talking about. Avoid doing so at your great peril.
Indeed, it is no accident of grammatical construction that the title of this site asserts that the Blade Runner sequel MUST include Rachael.
To get right to the heart of this site, please read my WHY INCLUDE RACHAEL, section, below. It begins about 1/3 way down the page. Then read my special, and extremely important, message to each of you, individually, called MESSAGES TO EACH INDIVIDUAL BR2 PRINCIPLE, near page bottom.
I then urge you to carefully read the balance of the site. It contains facts and perspectives key to a full and proper understanding of what's at stake, here.
The disastrous decision was made to exclude actor Mary Sean Young, and her seminal and iconic character Rachael, from the momentous new sequel Blade Runner 2049. One would not consider a two-piece puzzle complete with one piece missing, yet this is precisely what this decision means.
To add insult to injury, neither Blade Runner fans, nor film critics nor the general public, have received any explanation whatsoever as to why Sean Young as Rachael is not in the film. It remains a complete media blackout. Total radio silence.
This web effort aims to help redress this miscalculation; its objective is to persuade the BR2 powers-that-be to include Sean Young as Rachael in the film. I have important remarks to make, including creative and plausible cinematic suggestions. All remarks are proffered with Love and respect to all parties.
Please note, additionally, that as a writer I engage in a rewrite and polish process during the initial stage of the creation of a given body of writing. So in visiting this site, please refresh your web page every time, usually by pressing your F5 button, as my content may have changed since your last visit. Even sometimes from minute-to-minute.
What follows is a reasonable version of my content, just uploaded and gone live tonight, Sunday morning, February 12, 2017, at about 1:55 am. I've been working nonstop on this content for over 10 hours. I now sit here with a headache! I recommend that interested parties read through this page carefully several times, and begin spreading the word. The content here is necessarily somewhat disjointed and nonoptimally edited, as just finishing a decent first draft proved to be very time-consuming. I'll polish over the next week or so. Just press the F5 button on your keyboard to refresh the page, to ensure that you always get the latest version.
Our Better Selves
The argument and extended essay presented at this Internet resource, BR2049MustIncludeRachael.com, actually originates at, and properly belongs to, my parent site OUR BETTER SELVES. I've assigned this content its own site, however, because 1.) the content is extended, whereas most of the essays at OBS are shorter and 2.) a dedicated site will more readily appear in Internet searches.
Make no mistake, the appeal, and fulfillment of the appeal, to include Sean Young as Rachael in Blade Runner 2049, the Blade Runner sequel, would and indeed unquestionably does comprise an example of our "better selves."
However, since I'm not in charge of this film, it's not my "better self" that is at risk.
After reading this entire page several times, to familiarize yourself with the cinematic, conceptual, and ethical terrain that we are traversing, please contribute a meaningful thought to the site GuestBook, link at page bottom.
The Doctor Will See You Now
Like many of you, Blade Runner is, and for many years has been, one of my very favorite movies. And through the years, whenever I'd occasionally think of or read about the notion of a sequel, it was always understood, absolutely implicit, that Deckard and Rachael would be in the movie. It was largely because of these very two characters that we, or at least I, and likely many others, longed for that sequel--to learn their fate. To see how they were faring together in the new, even more harrowing society that the world had probably further devolved into.
So now, over the past year, as the news of a Blade Runner sequel jumped from a shadowy rumor to absolute cinematic fact, we learn that RACHAEL, SEAN YOUNG, IS NOT GOING TO BE IN THE SEQUEL?!
WHAT ARE THESE PEOPLE THINKING? ARE THEY THINKING?
For me, this news could not have been more out of left field. An absolute electric shock to the system. Completely blindsided!
Sean Young's entire presence and performance as Rachael was superb! Rachael, as much as any other character, IS Blade Runner, and they leave her OUT of the sequel?
SOMEONE NEEDS TO HAVE THEIR HEAD EXAMINED!
Or perhaps we should administer a collective Voight-Kampff test to the powers-that-be behind Blade Runner 2049, to gauge their emotional response, in order to understand how they could commit such an egregious and glaring slight toward actor Sean Young, and indeed every, or certainly many, Blade Runner fans.
Get Holden in here, now.
The Point & Objective of this Internet Resource
The essential dynamic, intention, and hope of this site is that it will throw out what I believe is a copious stream of wisdom, with the antennae of one or more persons of equal wisdom inside the BR2 inner circle, receiving, and acting upon, my, and indeed I hope, our, message: put Sean Young as Rachael in this film. And I don't just mean in a cameo appearance. We will need the many BR fans, especially those with dedicated sites such as Blade Zone, and others who may have a direct or even indirect line of communication with the BR powers-that-be, to apprise them of this site. And indeed to agitate for its message.
Fork in the Road
It may be time for me to reappraise my devotion to Blade Runner, especially if the sequel is released without Sean Young as Rachael. I've loved the film for years, purchased it on videocassette, then DVD, and then DVD again when the Director's Cut was released, purchased one of the soundtrack versions on CD--and waited with baited breath for years for a sequel, just as all of you. Yet I've also had to grapple with my own increasing epiphany that the film was a "flawed masterpiece" as I put it, "flawed" because of the utterly vexing identification of Deckard as a replicant, a plot artifact that, as many have noted, skews the message of the movie, and restrains and diffuses its power.
And let all confusion cease: Rick Deckard IS a replicant. I clarify and declare this not by assumption or cinematic interpretation, by simply by watching and listening to Ridley Scott himself state it clearly. Of Deckard he said "He's a replicant!"
If this flaw is now compounded by the colossal and egregious mistake of denuding the franchise of Rachael, as arguably important to the new film as Deckard or indeed any other character or film element, this may be it for me. I may simply no longer remain cheerfully willing to sustain a devotion to a franchise gone so badly off course, tragic as the entire affair will be. And for me, the slight to actor Sean Young is simply too much to bear, as well, after she has been waiting for many years for precisely this opportunity. For this role--her role. And the Blade Runner powers-that-be, the "Inner Circle" starting with Alcon, appear quite content to leave Ms. Young, and the powerful, iconic, and integral character that she animated, out of the sequel.
From my perch, it would seem that just as Rachael was a pawn of larger socio-economic forces that she could not control, so is real-life actor Sean Young.
(And, indeed, the rest of us.)
I cannot, do not, and will never, accept this. And I don't want you to accept it, either.
Ridley - Have you forgotten about your friend Sean?
Please read the balance of my message of love and hope to you, near page bottom.
I declare, therefore, as of this moment, Sunday, February 19, 2017, 4:14 am, Eastern Standard Time, that if Blade Runner 2049, the Blade Runner sequel, is released without Sean Young as Rachael, I will neither see it in a theater, purchase it on disc, or stream it. In other words, I won't pay a penny for it. I won't watch it, and I will do my utmost to persuade as many others as possible to similarly refrain.
And this is precisely what I'm asking all of you to do: contact anyone and everyone you know with an association to the Blade Runner franchise, from friends, to the powers-that-be such as Alcon, Ridley Scott, Harrison Ford, Hampton Fancher, et al, and apprise them of this website, informing them that Sean Young as Rachael must be in this movie in a substantive role, not just a cameo, or you are permanently boycotting this film.
I want all of you, from New York City, to Los Angeles, to Tokyo, to Sidney, to Nairobi, to London, to Moscow, and everywhere in between, to help build and sustain this boycott. Barring violence, aggression, or insult, be wildly creative in your methods for getting the word out, and bringing boatloads of people in, worldwide. Think outside, inside, on top of, underneath, and all around "the Box."
We've read that Ms. Young called for a boycott of this film if her character is excluded. The fans, she rightly stated, would be disappointed. However, Ms. Young should not have to call for a boycott--WE should be calling for it; we true Blade Runner fans.
Who the hell is some clearly profit-and-ego driven corporatocracy to categorically decide for us what the narrative contours of our film will be?
There is now a petition, as well. Though I did sign it, of course, I didn't create it. I'm very gratified that, as it turns out, I'm not the only person chagrined at this colossal exercise in cinematic narcissism. Please sign the petition.
The Future is Now
One of the most potent insights that I can offer is that these unjust behind-the-scenes machinations that have resulted in the omission of Sean Young from BR2, is Blade Runner, in the here-and-now. This utterly antihuman circumstance, where a beloved sister in our one human family is being treated so shabbily, without humanity, is the world of Blade Runner: where humans have lost their humanity in a turbulent sea of desperate narcissistic survival, if not domination.
For understanding of, and immersion in, the generally inhumane world of Blade Runner, one needn't see either Blade Runner film--just follow the mechanistic actions of the companies that own, license, finance, and produce Blade Runner 2049. You'll see all the examples you need of filmmaking entities for which a singular and circumscribed motto, Tyrell-like, might be: "commerce is our goal here..."
Movers & Shakers
Aggregating a critical mass of fans is key if we're to persuade the powers-that-be to reverse themselves and put Sean in the film. However, celebrities or other public persons, or persons with power or influence in this sphere of Entertainment will likely be key, as well, in effectively conveying our message to entertainment powerholders such as Alcon, the company that has licensed Blade Runner.
If you are such a person, then, please step up.
I remind fans and other interested parties that this objective is time-sensitive. As of February 2017 there is about eight months to release. Assuming that the Blade Runner powers-that-be are open to modifications to the film, this entire process, starting with lobbying them to raise their awareness that such modifications are necessary, must occur posthaste. That means: in a hurry!
Why, specifically, did I create this website and start this campaign?
Because I recently heard that after all these years the unthinkable was happening: there was finally to be a sequel to Blade Runner. Sean Young, however, who we’d presume would be very interested in the project, to say the least, was understood to be excluded. She would not reprise her iconic role as Nexus 6 replicant Rachael. I could only imagine her hurt in this circumstance--now, but especially as the film debuts and the entire world is alive with Blade Runner 2049 fever.
It wasn’t even that Ms. Young wasn’t being cast in the movie--as injudicious cinematically as I thought this might be. It was just as much, likely more, the shabby way that it appeared she was being treated in this regard. It appeared that she was being given short shrift by the Blade Runner 2049 powers-that-be. In terms of what press reports indicated, this is what I noticed, and it hurt me. I never met Ms. Young, never communicated with her, nor had any particular crush on her. But I actively practice Love and thus I notice when a Brother or Sister, anywhere, is subject to a pointed hurt, and I hurt for them. And not putting Ms. Young in the Blade Runner sequel after she likely waited all these years for this precise opportunity, and certainly expected it, reasonably so, and probably needed it, too, struck me as a pointed hurt.
Not to mention the profound disappointment that many fans would feel.
I've since communicated with her several times via email, though never officially or properly met her, and have no financial or other relationship or association with her. This project started as, and remains, an old-fashioned "labor of love," along an arc of both moral and cinematic redress.
If Rachael, played by Mary Sean Young, known popularly as Sean Young, is not an integral and indispensable part of Blade Runner, I don’t know who or what is. Mr. Scott et al in excluding Ms. Young and this character are erroneously presuming that this character is not integral and indispensable.
As a movie, the new production may prove excellent, even without Rachael. Even, conceivably, superb. But it won't be Blade Runner, fully. It simply can’t, no more than a one-legged runner, regardless of commitment to practice and victory, can win a grueling long-distance marathon without two legs. The physics of motion and velocity require the runner have both legs, no human can run on one leg, and in like fashion, the physics of the motion and velocity of Blade Runner require the production have both it's legs: Deckard and Rachael.
On one leg the production may hop around skillfully. Masterful filmmaking may achieve this. But without two legs, the movie can and will never reach the full grace and stride of the world-class long distance runner. It will simply never be Blade Runner.
It may prove a good, even great movie, but it will never prove a good, even great, Blade Runner movie.
BR2049MustIncludeRachael.com, this Internet resource, will further explain why, as well as how, the production can readily proceed with Ms. Young aboard, given that the Rachael character was to live just four years, and the actor Sean Young has obviously lived more than four, and accordingly appears older, as has and does Harrison Ford. This, however, was not a hard problem to solve, and I've solved it. I presume that other talented writers could have done the same.
In excluding Rachael, the powers-that-be behind Blade Runner are about to commit one of the most egregious mistakes in cinema history. The history of sequels is a battlefield scarred with the corpses of the dead. Dead movies. Let’s not add one more--especially Blade Runner. There are now so few examples in this world of genuine excellence and uncompromising integrity.
Alcon, Mr. Scott, et al, listen and listen well: fans and professional critics, alike, agree that the Blade Runner franchise is very important. Sci-fi fans have voted it the most important sci-fi film of all time. Time magazine lists the movie as one of the greatest ever made. And the American Film Institute features it as number six in its list of the top 10 science fiction films of all time.
Indeed, a key reason that it took over THIRTY YEARS to fashion a sequel is that the original is hard to top. So if a sequel is to be, let's ensure categorically that every avenue and conduit is explored and exploited to make the sequel as good as the original.
And who in their right mind, free of the ephemeral constraint of profit or the suffocating constraint of ego, can genuinely think that such premiere excellence will be achieved by omitting what is transparently an utterly critical and indispensable character, and the actor who so expertly and compellingly portrayed her?
The present Alcon emperor, I'm afraid, is stark naked.
Carrie Fisher and Sean Young share a similar history: both were beautiful young women propelled to stardom via pioneering cinematic vehicles very early in their career, making both of them film icons. Yet, while cinematic and cultural icon Carrie Fisher is sadly no longer with us, Mary Sean Young, happily, very much is. Let's not overlook this important existential dimension of this circumstance, by foolishly ignoring Ms. Young's wonderful acting ability, commitment to this franchise, and categorical association with it in the public mind.
And the case of Carrie Fisher is instructive in an even more important regard. Though Ms. Fisher was 19 years old in her first Star Wars role, the makers of Star Wars: The Force Awakens put her in this newest film because fans wanted her--though she was now SIXTY YEARS OLD.
Why can't Sean Young be similarly included in Blade Runner 2049?
Hell--Sean's only 56!
We presume that the author, musician, painter, sculptor--and filmmaker--aspire to create "art." A principal characteristic of art, as I understand it, is timelessness. A genuine work of art is timeless--it is of such a design and construction that it is likely to be as revered far in the future as it may be today. There will likely be one and only one Blade Runner 2049. Let's make it the very best it can be, no holds barred, such that it will indeed be considered "art," much as the first film is.
I don't see how this film will be art, if one of its most iconic, powerful, and magnetic characters is missing. I hope that the filmmakers are not confusing a great movie with a great franchise-specific movie. For example, was Terminator 3 a good movie? Yes. Was it a great addition to the Terminator franchise? In other words, was it a great Terminator movie? No.
Harrison Ford has purportedly stated that the script for Blade Runner 2049 is the best he's ever seen. But I'd remind him of the above--a great movie does not mean said production is a great Blade Runner movie.
See my OPEN LETTER TO JJ ABRAMS for further perspective on the nature of cinematic art.
Look at that body language, and body -- Rachael is one sexy replicant!
(Perhaps pleasure models like Pris could alternatively be called "sexplicants.")
WHY INCLUDE RACHAEL
You’d think such a question irrelevant or superfluous, if not absurd. But given that this character is thus far not in the movie, I guess someone must actually ask, and answer, this question.
Including Rachael in the film:
Retains the logic and continuity of the last film, the original. That movie saw every single (non-Deckard) replicant retired or otherwise dead by its end--EXCEPT RACHAEL. This suggests that as important as the other replicants were, they were ultimately expendable within the framework of the movie, whereas the Rachael character was not. Given her obvious importance, then, and the stark fact that as a practical matter she did survive, there are a lot of fans, starting with ME, expecting to see Deckard and she in the next film, the sequel. They were the only two replicants remaining at the end of the original, AND they escaped together in what was obviously an intense relationship. For the sequel to begin any other way is dissonant, illogical, and deflating.
I'm telling you: if the Blade Runner sequel is not in large measure a continuation of the original, you're going to have a significant contingent of disappointed fans. Perhaps even angry fans. And if Blade Runner 2049 is not a continuation--why call it a sequel?
Overall, avoids a total, historic, and irreversible franchise disaster. You and your filmmaking colleagues are, in fact, in very dangerous territory here. Search the Net using your favorite engine with this string, "jj abrams star trek mistakes." A DuckDuckGo.com search, for example, returns articles with names like:
...as well as this: "6 Terrible Movie Remakes That Should Not Have Been Made"
A Google search using a similar string "jj abrams star trek mistakes fans angry anger" returned 516,000 results, the very first of which is "Why Trekkies Don’t Like J.J. Abrams."
...and then there's The Lawnmower Man.
The Lawnmower Man
Ardent sci-fi fans may know the story of The Lawnmower Man franchise, in many ways parallel to what seems about to unfold with the Blade Runner franchise: the first film in that franchise, titled The Lawnmower Man, much like our first beloved Blade Runner film, was heralded as pioneering and powerful, and worked fantastically as a movie, as well. When the sequel finally arrived, fans to their horror saw a film that not only failed to continue the original, but actually changed key events, one event in particular. Much as JJ Abrams botched both Star Trek and Star Wars, ruining the franchise in the former, in my opinion, through a musico-cultural marriage that never should have been, residing at the pinnacle of Stupid, a phantom filmmaker named "Farhad Mann," the antigenius behind the Lawnmower Man sequel, botched his franchise, as well.
Whatever it's virtues, Lawnmower Man fans hated the sequel, and it remains one of the most reviled science fiction films of all time.
And one can't help but compare this film remake and its commentary here with Blade Runner:
"1954’s Planet of the Apes is widely regarded as one of the greatest sci-fi movies ever made. This makes any attempt at a remake a fool’s errand, especially when your efforts will be constantly measured up to those of a classic film. Why a studio saw fit to tag Tim Burton to direct its remake is far beyond us. His version possessed none of the charm of the original, and certainly little of the shock value. Cinema Crazed even went so far as to call it “one of the most nonsensical series of events ever created on film,” making for a movie that failed astronomically on every level."
You can avoid all of this potential ugliness--if you jettison this absurd notion of a Blade Runner "reinvention," and hue to the overwhelmingly logical and reasonably expected framework, as explicated at this website.
Pull Yourself up by Your Reboot Straps
Because this particular kind of change was perpetrated upon Lawnmower Man, it put the film in the cinematic category that we now know as the reset or the reboot, whereby a sequel presents a narrative with an alternative timeline or version of events. This trend represents the worst, most vacuous, and most lazy kind of filmmaking. In the latter day, JJ Abram's problematic Star Trek is a victim, though the most catastrophic exemplar of the reboot must be acknowledged as Terminator: Genysis, which completely reversed the dynamic of the franchise, making John Connor the villain, not the hero, among other problems. The resulting product--I won't abuse the word "film"--was a confused, absurd, and shameful mishmash. In our larger global society, and the world of cinema, specifically, there are few better examples of the excesses and their consequences of the obsessive capitalist quest for profit at any cost. These reboots are created, after all, in the attempt to wring every last penny of profit from a given franchise.
Thankfully, Blade Runner 2049 does not appear to be a reboot, as such, based on the little that we know so far. But it is committing the basic mistake of the reboot--wholesale continuity failure. It's not continuing the plotline of its original, when that plotline was left intact, untouched, ready for, and indeed pregnant with, both continuation possibility and continuation expectation. The possibility for continuation is so evident and great that it easily gives birth to the equivalent expectation of continuation.
In contrast, for example, had Rachael been killed in the original film, or even had she and Deckard parted ways, there would likely be no expectation of the continuation of a timeline in which they were together. But she was not killed, and they did not part ways--in fact the complete opposite occurred. Hence, our reasonable, growing, and irrevocable expectation.
As presently plotted and especially as presently cast, we find that BR2, while not a reboot as such, may come perilously close. And when a filmmaker revokes the irrevocable--expect trouble.
Nor can we accept the assertion, in the failure to recast Sean Young as Rachael, "Well, we didn't use anyone in the old cast." Not true--they're using Harrison Ford as the Deckard character, set 30 years after the original. If they can do this, they can certainly use Sean Young as Rachael.
Another assertion that we won't accept is "Rachael had a four-year lifespan." As I recall, the original film actually implied otherwise. Moreover, even if she did, it shouldn't have been a cinematic Rubik's Cube for a smart group of writers to plausibly circumvent that--I did (described below).
If Rachael's lifespan is deemed to be something longer than four years, my particular plot construction, below, can easily be adapted or otherwise modified.
Again, however, and happily, simply and rightfully including Rachael in the film deftly retains the logic and continuity of the Blade Runner franchise.
Let Lawnmower Man and Terminator rest in peace. It's too late for them, now.
Including Rachael in the sequel also retains the power of the original, given what I just wrote above. As the original progressed, and then neared its end, the presence of Rachael and her relationship with Deckard increasingly took over the film. By the end, the power center of the film was these two and their relationship to each other, as well as the larger, now-especially dangerous society around them. Then they escaped together, these two sad and potentially ruined beings.
HOW CAN THE SEQUEL PROPERLY AND LOGICALLY EXIST WITHOUT THE CONTINUATION OF THIS PLOTLINE?
Indeed, did science fiction writer Anne Charnock opine, in the April 03, 2015 online edition of Popular Mechanics, in an article entitled "We Ask 7 Sci-Fi Authors to Write Blade Runner 2":
"...my main concern is that the action scenes do not dominate in the sequel since, in Blade Runner, it is the intensity of the relationships played out on the screen that wins over the audience. I'm referring to the heart-breaking scenes between Rachael and Deckard. (Will I ever forget Rachael playing the piano in Deckard's apartment?) ... This should remain central in the sequel."
I Didn't Know if I Could Play
Moreover, so many of the most haunting scenes in Blade Runner are those featuring the interplay between Deckard and Rachael, such as those in Deckard's apartment. He and Rachael talking in his kitchen as he washes, for example, or, notably, sitting together at the piano. Such scenes displayed a unique drama and tension not just between replicant and (presumed) human, but man and woman. And not just this, but between man and woman thrown together in a situation uniquely harrowing for them both. And not just all this, but a man and woman taking their first baby steps toward an expression of apparent attraction to each other, even in the circumstance of the topsy-turvy world that they both find themselves in.
How will such sublime, profound, unique, and complex dramatic narrative be recreated in the sequel?
Obvious answer: without Rachael--it won't. The BR powers-that-be are blindly cutting the very heart right out of Blade Runner, and while they're at it, reducing the appeal of the film to the female demographic. Have they thought all of this through? I'm afraid that this is an absolute socio-cinematic catastrophe in the making right before our very eyes--perhaps even worse than even I have so far imagined it.
Meets reasonable fan expectations. I think it an almost categorical certainty that fans expect Sean Young to be in any Blade Runner Sequel. I've always implicitly assumed that she would be. We fans are not going to be pleased at this, and I predict that as good as the film may be on its own terms, as fans leave the theaters worldwide there is going to be a sense of unease at her complete absence. Fans and press, upon film release and indeed for eternity, which is how long art, good or bad, lasts, will be talking about how Sean Young, Rachael, was missing from the Blade Runner sequel.
The absence of Sean Young from this film is already starting to leave a bad taste in our mouths--and we're still eight months from release.
In fact, as I really start to bear down in this composition to get this site done, the ugliness of this reality is really starting to sink in, even for me. Omission of the Rachael character, and her animator Mary Sean Young, is absolute madness, and can represent little more than egoism and errant judgment, financial or otherwise, on the part of the makers of this film. There are likely one or two persons involved with the production who issued the decree, and the rest fell in line out of fear or habitual complicity. Apparently sheeple exist in the world of film, as everywhere else. And by the way, if we fans permit this we can count ourselves among those sheeple.
35 YEARS IS A LONG TIME
What the BR inner circle either doesn't realize, or doesn't care to realize, is that for the 35 years that this movie has existed, lacking corrective information supplied by a new, supplemental, or otherwise changed or adjusted cinematic or even literary work like a sequel, prequel, or work of widely-distributed fan fiction, the initial and then continuing understanding of the Blade Runner audience was that the unit of Deckard and Rachael, and this unit alone, in other words these two characters, together, defined what Blade Runner was. These were the two replicants left, and the only two, that survived at the finish of the original film. And not merely survived, but left together, as a pair, a unit, to face their uncertain future. This understanding had 35 years to "set," psycho-cinematically, as your name written in fresh concrete, and never disturbed, would still be there 35 years later.And this is precisely what happened in the Blade Runner universe. It's what Blade Runner has been, and obviously now still is, in the mind of BR fans, and the larger film-watching society.
If the film ended with Deckard lying on that roof philosophizing, after having been saved by Batty, or Deckard and Gaff going back to police headquarters, or Deckard slumping alone over a drink back at the Snake Pit, that would be one thing. It would reasonably lead us in one direction in understanding and assessing the film: Rachael was gone, and it was just Deckard now. And this knowledge would have permitted our intellectual and emotional selves to follow, and a call for the inclusion of Rachael in the sequel would simply not exist, or would be logically and appropriately discounted. However, none of these scenarios are, in fact, how the film ended. It ended not just with Rachael's survival, but, in fact, with not a single but double-emphasis on this character.
First, there was Gaff's exclamation about her to Deckard on the rooftop: "It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?" Gaff referred to, and exclaimed, not about replicants, but this particular replicant, Rachael. This was immediately followed, second, by Deckard traveling back to his apartment for her. And who can forget this key scene, obviously cinematically engineered for suspense and tension, where Rachael lay in bed covered entirely in sheets, neither the audience nor Deckard knowing if she were alive or dead. And the answer to this question obviously mattered a great deal to Deckard--the film made this quite clear to the audience.
So we clearly see a categorical emphasis on Rachael throughout the film, and, in fact, a marked emphasis on her at films end, set in intellectual and cinematic stone over a period of time just five years shy of 40 years. This simply cannot be arbitrarily, much less capriciously, changed or tampered with--as the 2049 sequel apparently intends to do. It can't be done without creating an a priori rejection of this change, and any new filmic vehicle, like Blade Runner 2049, that dares to carry it.
Indeed, the very web site at which you reside, right now, and the imminent fan anger and vexation that it portends, is such a rejection. Over time, expect more, especially as the novelty of "a new Blade Runner movie" slowly evaporates, and fans, critics, and thinkers begin to focus, analyze, deconstruct, and consider, from the increasing distance of time and dispassion.
Retains a unique and essential character. Rachael is at the heart of Blade Runner; indeed did the Los Angeles Times, in a March 02, 2011 piece, citing the original movie, refer to it as, and I quote, "...the Harrison Ford-Sean Young original...."
I don't mean to imply that the original film was not a fine ensemble cast and performance, because it was. Every character was unique and powerful and created the whole. Yet who would disagree that some characters and the actors who played them, were more central to the story than others? To wit: of the hundreds of Blade Runner websites, I dare you to find me one that doesn't have images of Rachael plastered all over the place. Which leads me to my second dare: I dare you to find me a Blade Runner fan who doesn't think "Rachael" when they think "Blade Runner."
Images of characters such as Sebastian, Chew, Bryant, and even Gaff and Pris are far fewer in number across the web. Most sites picture Deckard, Rachael, and Roy. Since the Roy character died in the original film, he can't easily be replaced. However, the Deckard and Rachael characters did not die, hence, they can be included in the sequel. And why they should be included is the subject of much of this website.
Indeed, Ms. Young's character is so central to the Blade Runner narrative, that there are numerous analyses of her, online and off, analyzing and assessing her from the stand point of philosophy, psychology, sociology, theology, feminism, technology, fashion, and probably just about every discipline that exists. Here, for example, is one such piece, of many:Blade Runner: Analysis of Rachael the Replicant
Increases the gravity of the film. In other words, its sober seriousness that fans love so much, and have come to expect. In my suggested plotpoint as described below, for example, there are three Rachaels, and two of them are dead. Why is this, and whatever the reason--was it worth it?
When Deckard discovers three identical Rachaels in laboratory stasis, it confirms and reinforces with deadly and disturbing clarity that the lovely young being he knew--and came to love--was, indeed, an artificial construction (as was he).
(Or was it merely her origin, her birth, that was artificial, and she a legitimate being?)
Avoids retroactively devaluing the character. There's a genuine issue of art, here, and the legacy of the first film, and the sequel, both, that will suffer without Rachael. In watching and especially rewatching the original Blade Runner, how do we interpret the import of Rachael at the close of the original, if the sequel is completely silent on her? By implication, alone, it devalues the character retroactively. After watching a Rachael-less sequel, watching the original will be a completely different experience, because we'll know that all the cinematic bluster and sturm-und-drang surrounding Rachael in the original was a complete sham--if it wasn't, the continuation of the tale would surely and obviously include, indeed likely start with, Rachael. While her exclusion, in contrast, reduces her, and the original film, to:a poor player
Why would the viewer permit themselves to get so emotionally invested in Rachael, and the vagaries, undulations, and pain of her existence in the original narrative, knowing that even though she means the world to Deckard, and the film, happily, emphasizes her as surviving, indeed as the lone survivor among all the replicants, in the sequel she is nowhere to be found? Just…gone.
It is the old Soviet mechanism of autocratic repression and forced conformity at pain of death: a party member who dared disagree with "the Party" would simply disappear--quickly, silently, and summarily. The next party meeting would find their seat empty--while no one dared inquire or otherwise mention it.
I am daring to mention it. Rachael's seat is empty. Where the hell is she? Who abducted her in the night with nary a word to the world that loves her?
Confirms that this Blade Runner sequel IS indeed Blade Runner, and is accepted as such. This is key, especially given that its status as a different movie from the first will likely already mean that there will be differences. Differences that, if not handled correctly, could put enough daylight between the two films such that fans won't really or fully accept BR2 as Blade Runner.
With both Deckard AND Rachael in the new film, however, this adverse and potentially calamitous possibility is completely neutralized. It's gone, pro-actively and intelligently eliminated a priori. It would be, as Roy says to Chew, with a smile: "Smart!"
Shows respect and Love to Sean Young, which is far more important than any other consideration. The vagaries of commercial filmmaking pale in comparison to the importance of human relationships. A world without love and respect looks just like...well, just like the grossly morally compromised world that we see, today.
In its very worst form, can you say ISIS?
It's simply the proper and decent thing to do. Stated in the reverse, excluding Sean young from this film is "not nice." In fact it's horrible. In fact, including her in the film...
...Focuses on the correct element in its making. I don't care what the reigning critique of her offscreen behavior has been. Let's focus on what she can do, onscreen, and her obvious deep commitment to this franchise, and vital history in it.
Any unwillingness to hire Ms. Young because of her reportedly bad offscreen behavior over the years, and suffer some perceived inconvenience in working with her--thus despoiling the film and grossly dispiriting fans for eternity--must be understood as nothing less than an ego-driven, not artistically-driven, decision.
What matters is the art. Not even the artist, nor certainly the patron of the art, which ultimately is what the production company, financial companies, distribution entities, and related firms are. Fine art will exist forever, while those who made it and those who financed it, both, will eventually perish.
Opens an easy door to a Blade Runner 3, with the extended plotpoints as I describe them, below, and continuing inclusion of the Rachael character.
Avoids setting a very bad example for future filmmakers and sequels, the Hollywood notion that we can simply ignore one another. That it's ok, and that we often do so with impunity. Not returning phone calls, for example, as one often hears about agents, producers, directors in this business? Ignoring people is one of the worst forms of nonlove. It's so disrespectful, and often causes real anger. Nobody wants to, or should, be treated that way.
Is in Sean Young's best interest. I was told by an inside source that Ms. Young actually did not want to appear in the film. I have nothing but respect and love for this source, and this source can plainly see that this is true by this unilateral, unsolicited effort before their very eyes--this web site. But I find it hard to believe that Ms.Young would harbor such a desire, barring some untoward outside influence, bearing in mind that Ms. Young's own misjudgment or trepidation could serve as such an influence, if unchecked and leading to an otherwise undesirable result.
In other words, it's possible that, like the rest of us, she might be unwisely influencing herself into thinking that she doesn't want to be in the film. I think that upon film release, with the intense global attention and adulation that it will garner that she will be conspicuously absent from, Ms. Young will be happy that she fought the good fight for justice, even if she lost. If she fights, then no matter what the powers-that-be decide, she'll have won a personal victory.
Additionally, all press reports on this topic that have ever been published indicate the opposite--Sean Young most certainly wants to be in the film. There are specific quotes purported to be her own words to this effect. And from a purely common sense perspective--why wouldn't she want to be in the film?
I hope that seeing the incredible images of herself as Rachael from the original film, displayed here, will inspire Ms. Young to throw an inordinately interior caution to the wind, and stretch for the career and cinematic brass ring that hangs directly before her--and is rightfully hers.
"There are some fights to avoid even if you can win, and some fights you must undertake even if you might lose."
Retains a key part of the appeal of Blade Runner. What is one of the principle elements of Blade Runner that has struck people from the beginning? Answer: the stunning beauty and physical perfection of Sean Young. Lets face it--this actor, Sean Young as Rachael, is at the heart of Blade Runner. In fact, truth be told, Harrison Ford playing the Deckard character could be eliminated more readily and plausibly than Sean Young playing the Rachael character.
Indeed did Rita Kempley, Washington Post Staff Writer, in her September 11, 1992 review of the Blade Runner Director's Cut, refer to "...a genetically engineered "replicant"...played by a radiant Sean Young."
"Radiant"--precisely. And more.
The nature of the Rachael character, the excellence of Ms. Young bringing her to life, and Ms. Young’s stunning physical beauty are a huge tripartite slice of the reality of the continuing appeal of Blade Runner.
What of those who say that Sean Young today, while still a beautiful woman, looks little like the Sean Young of 1982's Blade Runner? This question contains its answer: Mary Sean Young is a striking and beautiful woman at any age, and her presence in the film, visual appearance, personal presence, and acting will do nothing except turn the film from good to spectacular.
Will prevent confusion and disappointment among future viewers of Blade Runner. Persons watching the original film five, ten, or twenty years from now, loving it, and then watching the sequel, will be deflated and perhaps even angry that she's absent. This will cause consternation and not go over well.
Will appropriately strengthen Ms. Young's career. Not two nights ago did I watch an old YouTube Clip of Ms. Young on Letterman, reminding the entertainment world that she still exists, is a capable actor, and seeks work.
And last, but not least, in our capitalist society where lack of money will ensure nothing but an unpleasant life and speedy death: our Sister may indeed need the money.
Indeed, I advise the filmmakers to take advantage of the special cinematic benefit afforded by the experimental status of Rachael--the only one of the Nexus 6 replicants so identified by Tyrell. Because the film defines her as "experimental," it's possible that her lifespan could exceed four years, or there may be other parameters of her existence that can provide for latitude in filmmaking--like the multiple copies of her Deckard finds in the Lab, as described below, that permit the existence of a much older Rachael, and thus the easy inclusion of actor Sean Young in an auspicious reprise of the role.
The implausibility of inclusion of the Rachael character in the sequel, then, given her supposed 4-year lifespan, remains a thoughtless and chimerical assertion representing ignorance of the implication and possibility concretely presented in the original movie (see "How Long Does Rachael Live," below). In actuality, the plotline of the sequel, or a strong secondary subplot, could easily revolve almost completely around the character of Rachael, so pregnant with possibility is she and the totality of her established backstory--easily making for real and compelling depth of drama and narrative. Depth and drama that, unlike the present Rachael-less BR2 template, remains fully, logically, and satisfyingly consistent with the original masterpiece, and the established world of Blade Runner. You are needlessly destroying the established Blade Runner canon.
Indeed, a Rachael-oriented plotline could easily be a pivotal focus of the movie that, handled thoughtfully, would likely elevate the film from good or even great, to spectacular and indeed timeless, affording it a herald as real art.
In a 2011 Los Angeles Times article, Andrew Kosove, Alcon Entertainment co-owner, licensors of the Blade Runner property, stated: "We want people to know that we're very serious about doing this in an artistic way. This isn't just commercial fodder."
Are you sure? Says who? You are smart men. But I'm a smart man, too, obviously, and I say that this film as presently structured is inadequate, a manifold betrayal, and thus unacceptable. Part of what it's betraying, by the way, is your desire to earn as much profit as possible, over the course of infinity, from this property. This will happen in proportion to the measure in which the film reaches it theoretical zenith as a work of art (Mr. Kosove, himself, used the word artistic). Obviously, omitting a character who is both critical and established severely undercuts, and works at cross-purposes with, this possibility.
Messrs. Kosove and Johnson: how badly do you really want to put Alcon on the map?
Your absurdist omission has already alienated me--and I'm a HUGE Blade Runner fan. As stated elsewhere at this website, I've purchased, thus far over my lifetime, four separate BR-related products, notably various versions of the original film, and its music. At present, however, I can assure you that I will not be purchasing a fifth.
They're leaving this out of the movie?!
HOW TO INCLUDE RACHAEL
Explanation and Narrative Sketch
The plot description below is not meant to be inclusive; it can't be, as I'm unacquainted with the plot of BR2 as it stands, and would require more work, nonetheless. While my thoughts above comprise an explanation of WHY Sean Young playing the Rachael character should be in Blade Runner 2049, my thoughts in the following section, below, are meant to describe a ready, logical, and extremely plausible way to represent HOW Rachael, a replicant understood to have a 4-year lifespan, could indeed exist in the Blade Runner universe at around 50 years old.
As the plotline, below, coalesced, it became apparent that what I'm proposing is actually an entirely new main plot for the sequel. At this point that may not be realistic, although if Ridley and company genuinely want the very best plot available, one that must include Rachael as reason #1 that it's the best available, they should consider the plot below. Depending on the present plot of BR2, which none of us know, of course, the powers-that-be might be able to integrate my plot into it. Perhaps just the section whereby Rachael is revived and rejoins Deckard.
What I want at minimum from this sequel is the Rachael character, and I don't mean in a cameo.
I'm referring at present to my plot as simply the "Rachael 3" plot. You'll understand as you continue reading.
Part 1 - Resurrection
The Tyrell Building is colossal, and the Tyrell factory complex is mammoth, as well, even larger. Deckard's present investigation leads him there. The facility appears abandoned, or at least unsupervised, and he finds himself in one corner of the expansive warehouse-like facility, confronting a nook with a small door labeled EXPERIMENTAL DIVISION - RACHAEL PROJECT. He swallows as his heart rate increases, and enters the door.
During his slow, deliberative tour through the laboratory, he spies at a short distance three horizontal stasis (i.e. suspended animation) chambers, each about six feet long and transparent, the approximate size and shape of a human, or perhaps "more-human-than-human," body. Once gleaming, the long boxes are now mostly coated with light gray dust. In the space of ten seconds or four heartbeats, whichever came first, he reviews in his mind several of the ominous possibilities responsible for the set of glass enclosures he sees before his very eyes.
With as much fear as caution he approaches the enclosures, unsure of what could be inside, though with a nauseating suspicion. With the natural caution he's shown over the years as a Blade Runner that has kept him alive countless times, he approaches them. He takes nothing for granted, but can't ignore his sad hunch, either.
Each box is marked at its foot with a label. They read, in order:
4 YEARS, NEX6
25 YEARS, NEX6
NATURAL LIFE, NEX7
In other words, the tag on the first box reads 4 YEARS, the tag on the second box reads 25 YEARS, and the tag on the third box reads NATURAL LIFE.
NOTE: alternative labeling could be:
NEX6, LIFESPAN: 4
NEX6, LIFESPAN: 25
NEX7, LIFESPAN: NATURAL LIFE
Or, alternatively, again, and more cryptically:
You'll note that in this plotline, the Rachael model that will live to the end of her natural life is generation Nexus 7!
Tension rises further as Deckard's natural caution joins battle with his increasingly urgent desire to see if the contents of these gleaming tubes is what--who-he thinks it is.
Walking closer, he can now discern that the enclosures, though originally transparent, have become clouded from the passage of time, and apparently from certain chemical or other processes occurring inside. It is therefore not immediately apparent to Deckard what--or who--is inside them. He realizes only now, at this moment, for the first time in his life, just what Tyrell and his company were really all about. But he has no time to ponder this feeling. Or his next logical thought--as a Blade Runner, he was part of this process of evil, as well.
Shaken from his nightmare reverie, he starts slowly walking toward what is apparently the head of that first box, labeled "4 YEARS," trudging as if walking the plank, aware of his last seconds on Earth. The entire tube is clouded, but as he approaches its head he begins to spy a portal, an area of glass perhaps 6" in diameter that remains only lightly fogged; almost clear. Stopping and bowing his head for a moment, sighing, he then raises it and moves forward a few more inches, enough to see through the portal.
Peering through, he winces and is nauseated at the same time, acquiring the visual proof of what he already knew: the occupant of the tube is Rachael, dead. His Rachael. Her face is clearly distinguishable as is her condition of life, of which there is none, an obvious lifelessness to her face and body.
This is the "four-year lifespan" Rachael, the Rachael Deckard knew and came to love, and seeing her now, like this, came as a massive blunt strike to his stomach, head, and very being, all at the same time. "Deckard. Blade Runner," he somehow found his brain thinking. "I never signed up for this." In fact, he knew that her time was up many years ago.
He then approaches the second gleaming glass box, marked "25 YEARS," finding another Rachael, also dead. Not "his" Rachael, but Rachael nonetheless. As Roy Batty, Deckard, too, over time had come to his own appreciation for all life, and a pang formed in him for this second dead Rachael. What was she like? Was there any of his Rachael, in her? As perhaps there is some of our parents, or brothers and sisters, in us? Not wanting to be discovered trespassing in Tyrell's lab, he couldn't entertain such questions for long, as important as they were.
He approaches the third long rectangular box, a more gleaming sarcophagus labeled at its foot NATURAL LIFE--and the Rachael inside appears alive. "Apparently Tyrell engineered this one to live to the end of her natural life," Deckard thought. "In the upside-down universe of the Tyrell Corporation," he wondered, "Would that be good or bad?"
This Rachael is obviously older, perhaps 50 or so, as her face betrays, even given the clouded tube. This would be her logical age, Deckard thinks, had she lived continuously for the last 30 years, even in this sort of suspended animation, as she apparently had. He detected her body pulsing very lightly, and even now her physical beauty remained riveting and irrevocable. If Deckard thought that his earlier experiences with Rachael, Tyrell, and the other replicants was fraught with manifold ethical, moral, personal, and ultimately existential dilemma, the lightly pulsing body and physical beauty of the Rachael being, lying face-up encased below him, saw him realize that the waters into which he was about to dive, were he to awaken her, would be his deepest and most tumultuous yet.
. . . . .
Deckard, or someone, ultimately does revive her. Upon doing so it is found that her right leg has died, the result of the mostly functional but still somewhat imperfect stasis technology, and her extended period of suspension. Besides various conditioning routines, later, to restore Rachael's perfect body after her long sleep, Tyrell's staff member grows the leg back for her, and it regenerates fully in about three days. "Rachael always did have great legs," Deckard muses.
How Long Does Rachael Live?
If we accept, as the theatrical release with narration asserts, that Deckard's Rachael was not limited by a 4-year lifespan, then my plotline, above, can easily be adjusted such that it would be the 25-Year lifespan Rachael that Deckard had met and fallen in love with, not the 4-Year model. I'd recommend retaining the three stasis tubes plotline, however, that include the 4-Year model, as it adds drama and interest.
Composing with authority the technical detail of a new plotline is somewhat difficult, because of conflicting indications regarding the lifespan of the Rachael character. For example, Ms. Young, herself, asserts Rachael as a Nexus 7 replicant, while Bryant, from the original film, informs Deckard that generation Nexus-6 units only live four years, and asserts Rachael as generation 6:
"Bryant: Now there's a Nexus 6 over at the Tyrell Corporation. I want you to go put the machine on it."
This means, in other words, that Bryant is telling us that Rachael will only live four years, as any Nexus-6 model. And in further apparent corroboration of a 4-Year lifespan for replicant Rachael, Gaff laments "Too bad she won't live...." This also suggests a short lifespan; likely 4-Years.
Yet concomitantly, Dr. Tyrell states that "Rachael is an experiment...." Could her experimental status mean a lifespan longer than 4-years? And Harrison Ford's narration in the theatrical release asserts that Deckard's Rachael was not limited by a 4-year lifespan, although as neither Scott nor Ford wanted that narration, and the narration had to support the false ending, which Scott also rejected, the narration may be inaccurate, as well.
Moreover, in the narration-less Director's Cut, Ridley Scott, assuming that he thought about it, elected not to mention the possibility of an unlimited lifespan for Rachael, as he did elect to do in the original theatrical release.
HOWEVER--as my plotline, above, asserts, what if there was more than one Rachael unit? In declaring Rachael an experiment, who's to say that Dr. Tyrell literally referred only to that one particular Rachael unit in the room with he and Deckard? Couldn't he have meant the Rachael Project was experimental? If so, there could have been more than one Rachael unit--each with its own specific lifespan or range of years of life.
The upshot of all this is, short of a two-hour "bull session" with Ridley Scott, himself, the aspiring Blade Runner screenwriter might as well bring a ouija board or crystal ball to the writing process as pen and paper or word processor.
The atmospheric of Deckard exploring the RACHAEL PROJECT room should be similar to that of Deckard exploring Leon’s apartment--intense and quiet, ultimately quietly explosive, except he will possess a sense of dread not exhibited in the previous scene, because in this scene he is anticipating finding Rachael dead, or in some horrible state of experimentation. Tyrell did say that Rachael was “...an experiment, nothing more.”
Note that as the product of replicant technology, The Tyrell Corporation could probably just replicate another Rachael if needed or desired.
Could Tyrell, however, replicate an older Rachael? We don't know, although it's irrelevant if our plotline states that at least one Rachael model was programmed to live to the end of her natural life, as described at this website.
Part 2 - Reorientation
Deckard and Rachael are together again--thirty years later. What can their existence be now, they wonder?
They look around them and see that their society has devolved further, a gleaming band of fibrous material once sturdy and robust, now destroyed, degraded, and thinned to just about the breaking point. The large-scale presence of replicants not solving any problem, but merely having firmly installed itself as one of the biggest.
So as any former slave possessive of intellect and courage often does--Deckard and Rachael decide to begin helping other replicants, which is to say, other slaves. Deckard and Rachael start what is essentially the first Underground Railroad for replicants, arrayed against one or more national governments serving as little more than an executive committee for the brutal global corporatocracy of 2049.
Their story proceeds from there.
Pouty-Lipped, Replicant China-Doll Goddess.
Is she even real? As real as you or me.
Additional Possible Reasons or Considerations in Including Rachael in BR2
And other Plot Possibilities
It can add more depth to the film, especially in terms of a moral decision that Deckard must make, just as in the first film he had to grapple with a moral decision--whether to kill replicants. Here, should he awaken the remaining, much older Rachael?
If he does, would anyone benefit? Would he? Would she? Yet, doesn't she have the right to live?
Is his impulse to awaken her influenced by his selfish desire to be with her again? If so, why should this impulse be considered selfish? Yet, as far as knows at this time--and he'll find out otherwise upon awakening her--this third, 30-year old Rachael probably won't even know who he is.
In the first film he had to grapple with initiating death. Now, he must grapple with initiating life. Such imperious reality has the errant technology of Man wrought. Or is it Man, himself, who is errant?
(If the filmmakers wish not to give Deckard this momentous moral decision to make, it can be de-emphasized or even eliminated by simply plotting such that he had to revive her--or not revive her--really having no choice in the matter.)
It may well be that the most potent and sublime plotline consists of an apparently necessary reason such that Deckard feels he must awaken Rachael 3, some great social requirement that she be awakened, combined with his emotional impulse to awaken her, because he loves her (which, however, is tempered by his trepidation).
And for an extra layer of conflict, even more texture, what if Deckard decides to suppress his emotion, thus requiring that he not awaken her, while his duty to society requires the opposite action?
What will he do?
And there are other possible scenarios, as well, offering the possibility of the creation of a wide cinematic landscape:
Deckard finds himself in stasis--the real, human Deckard, whom he awakens, then retires himself, leaving the remaining Deckard human. This solves the Is Deckard a replicant problem, with the answer, Yes--he was. But no more.
Or what if the Rachael he finds in stasis is the real, human Rachael? Upon awakening her, he now finds himself in a relationship where Rachael is the human and Deckard the replicant.
Or, perhaps wildest of all, Deckard the replicant finds his human self in stasis, awakens both the human original of himself, and the human Rachael, and retires himself. Then, the Deckard and Rachael who ride off into the sunset together are actually both human!
You’re Talkin’ About Memories
Rachael 3 remembers Deckard and the events experienced by Rachael 1. Rachael 3 has the events as memories, but she doesn't possess them as events that she, herself, lived through--because she didn't. It's a fine line, admitting of a lot of creative interpretation by producer, director, and actor. It can produce some fine dramatic moments.
Here's a way to understand this: suppose that you downloaded all your memories and your entire personality into a computer. Then you died. Then, a new body just like yours was created, and your downloaded file uploaded into the new body. Once your memories and personality were present in the new body, and the resulting new being--you--you'd understand that the events that you remembered weren't performed or experienced by you, but by a former you.
Once you understood this intellectually, you'd likely from then on simply accept what was, the new state of affairs, and continue on with your life, everything in place essentially as before in terms of your day-to-day functioning.
Rachael 3's reaction to these memories would not be unlike Rachael 1's reaction to remembering her piano lessons.
A related issue is how, specifically, Rachael 3, the oldest-lived Rachael "model" had the memories of the other two shorter-lived models, including the Rachael known from first film. It's because as the longest-lived model, her makers ensured that all the memories and life experiences of the previous models were transferred to her. Thus, it can be said, as much as anything can be said in the skewed world of Blade Runner, that Rachael 3 "is" Rachael 1.
The technical means of this transfer can be discussed. It may have been through a purely biological process, such as neuronal clusters being transferred through nanites or nanopods that are injected or ingested, or it could have been through silicone or even biological computing technology. If the film elects to discuss it, the dialogue might even employ some of the chemical names articulated by Dr. Tyrell as he speaks with Roy: "...Ethyl methane sulfonate as an alkylating agent..."
Between Deckard and Rachael 3ONE
Rachael 3: "I have photographs. See--it's me with my mother."
Deckard: (kind of a whisper) "I know. I've seen them."
REASON: establishes link between both Rachaels. And illustrates that they have the same personality and behavioral programming.
Rachael 3: (upset, looking at her reflection in the mirror for the first time in about 30 years) "I'm old!"
Deckard: (with continuing quiet devotion, even now) "You've aged beautifully." (creative reprise of his line in BR1 "You play beautifully.")
REASON: reprises previous line. Shows's Deckard's continuing regard for, and attraction to, Rachael.
Rachael, sad. The abject immorality of Tyrell's crimes is astounding.
What transpired to get Rachael 1 from her departure with Deckard as illustrated at the end of the original Blade Runner film, to this stasis tube back in Tyrell's laboratory, 30 years later? After four years she died, as programmed, and then Deckard had her buried, as with any human. Tyrell's spies witnessed this, reclaimed the body, and brought it back to the Tyrell Labs for testing or secure disposition.
Or, per Tyrell's direction, his agents found Rachael while still alive and took her back to the Tyrell facility, at some point after which, she died, perhaps while already back in stasis for testing.
Hey, what can I tell ya--it's a bleak movie!
Time & Money
What if the proposed change to the film, re-integrating Rachael, increases its release time by a year? Its budget by $1M or more?
It doesn't matter. This film, once made, will be around forever. And there will likely not be a second chance to get it right.
This film is one of the most crucial in all of Hollywood and social history, and its success, based not simply on name value and legacy, but on its strength, creativity, and intelligent and foreword-looking filmmaking, is critical and must be assured.
And any inflation of the budget will be justified and recompensed 1000-fold, over time. Blade Runner properly and optimally done will be a cash cow forever for the associated production, financial, and other entities. This is neither the time, nor the film, to be penny-wise and pound foolish.
How many Blade Runner 2's will there be? Make this film the absolute best that it can be, in every single respect!
NO HIP-HOP OF ANY KIND IN THIS MOVIE! Don't make the same mistake that the incompetent JJ Abrams made with Star Trek. This is not bias--I wouldn't necessarily recommend heavy metal or hard rock, either, as these are often vulgar and declasse' forms of music with associated culture, as well. The imagery invoked in one's mind when Hip-Hop music plays clashes completely with that of the world of Blade Runner.
Please stick with the proven and appropriate Vangelis-style soundtrack! Don't ruin the movie for me, and many other older persons. Persons old enough to know and love the original film. By the way, while you're so considerately doing things to avoid ruining the new movie--don't leave Sean Young out!
World of Pain
This is a world of pain. We are continually causing ourselves, and each other, pain. Let's avoid yet one more instance, and a big one, by the way: by any standard, Sean Young should be in this film. Put her in.
If, in conversation about the role of Rachael in the new film, Ms. Young appears to decline it, it may well be because she feels it's not being offered willingly or in good faith, or she may already feel put upon by Hollywood or life, itself. Many of us suffer such feelings. The proper practice of love requires that we attempt to see through such barriers, to the real person and what they are actually feeling, and what is best for them, whether they themselves realize it or not. And as Ms. Young's brother in our human family--I've never officially met her--and brother to all of you, as well, including Mr. Scott and everyone else associated with BR2, I will state my rather common sense opinion that what is in the best interest of Ms. Young (and the movie), clearly, is her inclusion. A respectful, proper, and caring inclusion, properly financially remunerated, with perhaps an apology from someone, as well, if necessary (which though routinely overlooked, is almost always a key part of the resolution of any conflict).
What's really at stake here? In the creation of this production? What will BR2 achieve and accomplish if properly executed?
It will make a lot of people happy. Blade Runner fans. This is the most important result.
We'll have made a great piece of art.
We'll have brought satisfaction and gratification to the actors and other artists who produced this art.
It will earn a lot of money, now and in perpetuity.
Who will it make happy, especially? Fans worldwide, now and forever. Long after the makers of this film are gone--and I note that most are over 50 years old, some much older--fans will be watching and enjoying this film. What of the creative staff, however, specifically the actors--will they be happy? That depends. I can think of one particular actor who is likely to be decidedly unhappy, perhaps crushed, when the film is released and for years afterward if the present grievous casting mistake is not rectified. We just can't do this to a Sister in our human family. Nor should we, speaking professionally, given Ms. Young's obvious vital contribution and categorical identification in the public mind with the franchise.
This negative possibility is what aroused my passion in the first place.
Rachael is at the heart of Blade Runner. And Sean Young is the actor who makes Rachael who and what we know her to be, love, and are endlessly fascinated by.
MESSAGES TO EACH INDIVIDUAL BR2 PRINCIPLE
Messrs. Andrew Kosove & Broderick Johnson
These two Princeton alums, co-founders and co-CEOs of Alcon Entertainment, official licensor of, and studio for, Blade Runner 2049, undoubtedly see themselves as smart, dynamic, and enterprising. And they're right. They've already made a mark upon Hollywood, and thus does their career education and development proceed apace. Congrats, Gentlemen!
Now, however, Gentlemen, you must pay renewed attention to your education and development as human beings, because it's here that your neophyte status is clear. You must learn, or perhaps be reminded, that we're all brothers and sisters in one human family--and you're hurting your sister Sean by excluding her from this film. And when the film is released in October 2017 and the entire planet goes Blade Runner crazy, minus Sean Young, she's really going to be hurting, after over 20 years of waiting for a role that is, by every rational measure, hers.
As smart men I'm sure you can see this.
And as smart businessmen, I'm sure you can immediately recognize gaining a movie, while losing your soul, as a very poor deal.
. . . . .
I am trying to teach, and elevate, you. I am Agape Master Vincent Frank De Benedetto.
I believe that this is a two-part problem. Part #1 appears to be that you, Mr. Kosove, wanted this film to be a strong breakaway from the original; indeed was it reported that you stated "This is a total reinvention, and in my mind that means doing everything fresh, including casting." Fans would be shocked--and angry--to learn that initially, you didn't even intend to include Harrison Ford in the sequel.
With no Ford, and no Young, we even begin to run into language issues--can the subsequent film even rightly be called a "sequel"? By including Harrison Ford you partially solved this semantic difficulty--but only partially, because the Rachael character is just as key, as explicated 1.) above in my 16 reasons, 2.) throughout this website, and 3.) intuitively in the brains of most fans.
Part #2 of this problem is that you did not sufficiently consider the effect that such a "reinvention" would have on key members of the Blade Runner team and family--like Sean Young.
Regarding Problem #1, Mr. Kosove, your desire for a complete reinvention, I'd respectfully assert that in this you were simply wrong. Such error will become increasingly apparent as the time-to-release draws near, then the release, and then the small-but-growing chorus of hard-core BR fan voices that will echo their emptiness and lack of gratification at the sequel. "It was a cool movie, a great movie," they will say, "But not really a Blade Runner movie. Not the one we wanted. "For example," they will lament, "Where was Rachael?" She with Deckard were clearly the locus of importance throughout the original movie, and especially at the end, but in the sequel she just...what? Fell off the face of the Earth? And Deckard's apparently secondary role will complete their lament.
This isn't exactly the Star Trek: The Next Generation series, where you can readily and somewhat arbitrily eliminate the entire crew and install its replacement.
Though it may garner millions at the box office, thus could your film fail, relative to the peerless standard that it could have easily met, were your premise correct. Then, ironically, you'd still have made millions--but without sacrificing your film, its legacy--and yours.
Did you run your complete reinvention idea by anyone? Any groups of Blade Runner fans across the country, or planet? Or was this a unilateral decision made in your own head? I'm a huge BR fan--I was never asked for my opinion.
Regarding Part #2, this was an error, as well. We're all brothers and sisters in one human family--even actors, critics, and studio heads--and must adopt a magnanimous and loving deportment toward each other. Meaning, in this case for example, and as you continue to make movies, you've got to actively consider, and act upon, the feelings and thoughts of all involved, especially principals.
Auspiciously, however, Blade Runner 2049 has not been released yet--so now we'll see if your intellect, ego, personality, value system, and genuine sense of cinema permit you to admit error, and rectify said error, even if you have to completely rethink your release date and budget, and do your damndest to similarly persuade Warner Brothers and other commercial entities.
Andrew and Broderick: You've got to do it--it's the only way.
I want to state that Ridley Scott is one of my two or three favorite filmmakers, the others being Woody Allen and Ron Howard.
I, and many others, love the rainy, moody, gray atmospherics of Mr. Scott's work, perhaps most notably Blade Runner and Alien. We love his filmmaking art.
The question before us now, regarding the question of a reconsideration of the decision to omit Sean Young from Blade Runner, is: while we love Mr. Scott's art, can we love his heart?
The answer awaits.
Mr. Scott, if you've categorically decided, this website notwithstanding, that there's no place for Sean in your movie, at least have the decency to explain this to her, properly, in-person. My understanding is that you did not do this. Read your own wise observation, at pagetop. I don't want you to decide in the negative, however; I want this website to persuade you otherwise. Read even more deeply into your own observation, at pagetop.
This website speaks Love--and I want you to learn that language.
Indeed, I continue my own efforts to learn to understand and live it fluently.
Regarding your role in directing Blade Runner 2049, you stated, it is "...the biggest artistic challenge I’ve had in my life probably."
And you've spoken of your absolute love for the original film and its franchise:
"I'm among the hardcore fans of Blade Runner. Blade Runner is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's a movie that is linked with my love and passion for cinema."
Accordingly, Mr. Villeneuve, I'm chagrined to tell you that, as presently plotted and cast, you are about to massacre this thing that you love so much. And if the consequence of the present mis-conception is not massacre, as such, outright compromise of its ideas and established plotline, it will simply be the damnation by faint praise of a work compromised by relative excellence--that which is excellent compared to similar products in the marketplace, but poor judged by its own internal standard.
If you've carefully read and considered my 15 reasons, above, that include extended discussion of this internal standard, you already know why this will happen.
Moreover, of the frequent female thematic in your work, you said:
It is ironic, then, Mr. Villeneuve, that this film that you assert you wish so badly to excel in creating, excludes its most important female character.
Forever is a Long Time
Were the culinary arts your field and forte', you'd have the luxury and relief of a nightly reinvention. Were the souffle uninspired one night, you'd have the supper of the next to try again. Your present and actual profession, film director, however, is far more categorically circumscribed in its permissions. You will make a movie once--and only once. Get it wrong, fail to do your homework, or sufficiently think through and consider what is required for success in a given project, and you will fail just once. But it will be a failure that will remain for all of eternity--with your name attached.
And in the case of a deep, thoughtful, and complex film like Blade Runner 2049, success means not just net profit, of course, but congruence with that both implied and stated by its progenitor, its cinematic parent, the original Blade Runner. This is a, or the, key problem with the sequel as planned. It doesn't properly continue the first film (as addressed, in detail, above). Thus, the new film as presently plotted doesn't possess, shall we say, "Blade Runner integrity." Indeed, it's a mere hair from the plausible assertion that it's really not a sequel, at all.
So while the twin dictates of 1.) other's egos (and perhaps your own), and 2.) commerce, exert pressure upon you to constrain your search for the proper way to express a cinematic objective and directorial impulse, the requirements of art, and morality, function differently: they require a generally more expansive and freeform approach. Do you have the intellect, and more importantly, the courage, to properly negotiate the two?
Even at this late date, Blade Runner 2049 simply must be rethought. There is no other way. Your name and reputation will be forever known as that which helped compromise the "masterpiece"--your word--that is Blade Runner.
One also wonders where the love and loyalty from Harrison Ford is. He should pull out of this production immediately if it proceeds without Sean. Yes, Mr. Ford, break your contract. It'll be bad for your career--but great for your soul. And it'll be a terrific first step in our effort to begin humanizing Hollywood.
I can't do it all. Now that this site is essentially complete, BR fans and others must spread this web address to other fans, and especially to BR principals including producers, financiers, and writers. Quote liberally from the site, with the URL. We must prevent a moral calamity, as well as retain the thematic and cinematic integrity of Blade Runner.
Rachael, again sad. Yes, I'm partial to the leg shots.
- BLADE RUNNER 2049 MUST INCLUDE RACHAEL -
Please Post Your Thoughts.
The GuestBook will open in a new web page. Messages that are disrespectful will be deleted.
I don't believe that this GuestBook provider, Voy Forums, collects any information about persons posting, whether individual or aggregate.
I'm Vincent Frank De Benedetto, Philosopher, New York Times-quoted writer, neologist, political activist, musician, Agape Master, Health Educator, Silence Activist (and here and here), inventor, former Leafblower & Community Relations Expert at a national anti-noise organization, and a continuing family Caregiver. I have a B.A. in Philosophy from Seton Hall University.
Contact me at onehumanfamily @ fastmail.net
This site was something of a bear to create. I worked on it over a number of sessions, initially spending over 10 hours on it in one sitting, then the next-day sitting here for about three hours further. And it's still not quite done: the site will likely require further touchups, and I have to engage in some preliminary promotion.
To view my body of online work, see the Projects link at my De Benedetto Arts home page. Or DuckDuckGo.com (i.e. search on) my full name. All sites will appear.
I've also recently renewed my commitment to (ovo-lacto) vegetarianism, if not outright veganism (vegans, watch your B12 level), because, while Man, the human animal, is at the heart of my Agape (ugg ah' pay, i.e. "Brotherly Love") paradigm, there is a discrepancy, incongruity, or discontinuity between a commitment to love the human animal (us), to help relieve its suffering and actualize its existence, and the complete absence of love for the non-human animal (cow, chicken, pig, fish, etc.), also a sentient being that feels pain and self-preserves, as we commit its torture and slaughter in order to turn it into food or other products.
To Agents, Managers, Venture Capitalists, & Fellow Great Samaritans
As you may know if you've read this entire site, and perhaps followed and read through some of my links--I am a tour-de-force in social science, writing, and music (Do you like the way I write? Here's a secret as to why I write well: I'm not really a writer...I'm really a thinker. Don't tell anyone!). I also have numerous excellent invention ideas.
"Vincent Frank De Benedetto" is my brand. If you search the 'Net on my full name, my entire body of online work will appear, about 15 web sites. And though I do what I do because I want to save the world, and have the perspective, principles, and political program to do it, it just so happens that because of my talent and the way I do what I do--my work is dripping with high-dollar commercial potential.
My principal claim to fame thus far is that some of my original writing was cited and published in the New York Times (no, not a Letter to the Editor), and I think that Ms. Young's responsiveness to me speaks to my personality and intellect, as well. But I assure you, all this is just the beginning. Projects/products in long-term development include a seminal book and multimedia set (easily made into a blockbuster film), and a musical release, all having the same thematic: establishment of the Brotherhood of Man. My work will prove the ultimate, and ultimately most profitable, example of the latter-day business paradigm "Doing well by doing good."
I simply need someone to work with, and invest in, me--while we sit back, save the world, and make large amounts of money doing it.
Contact me this moment! The world needs saving right now--no time for delay!
Now that the content at this site has become so substantive and extended, and indeed continues to grow, I've decided to declare a copyright. All site content, ideas, and terminology Copyright (c) 2017 Vincent Frank De Benedetto.
No, this does not imply or otherwise mean that, were any of my ideas adopted, for BR2 script, plot, inclusion of Ms. Young in the film, or anything else, that I would demand compensation. It goes without saying, of course, that such compensation should be voluntarily proffered, if appropriate.
Perhaps we, do, indeed, need to take our first few steps toward Humanizing Hollywood.
Please reread the Ridley Scott quote, at page top. Maybe he'll be our second member, presuming that Ms. Young would be our first.
Indeed, art and creation are my lineage: my Uncle Joe was a painter, and my Father, Frank Salvatore De Benedetto, is a musical composer, poet, writer, pencil sketch artist, maker of miniatures, and amateur carpenter. He was featured several times, with photographs, in local newspapers and other publications for his songwriting, and appeared on the Joe Franklin Show television program (video pending), showcasing his candidate musical composition for official New Jersey state song.
And I am walking directly in my Father's large and wonderful footsteps.
. . . . .
(When was the last time you called or hugged your Mother or Father?)
This site powered by Dream Theater Images & Words. Simply meaning, I listened to a lot of this fine release--dramatic, musical, and heavy--while composing this site!
- Blade Runner 2049 Must Include Rachael -