MovieChat Forums > Blade Runner 2049 (2017) Discussion > Why aren't any of the orignal cast besid...

Why aren't any of the orignal cast besides Ford involved in this?

posted 8 years ago by cazzo9
7 replies | jump to latest

Many of the actors from the 1982 movie are still alive and had important roles in the original, e.g. M. Emmet Walsh, Edward James Olmos, Sean Young, James Hong etc. So my question is, why is ONLY Harrison Ford returning? Sure, he's is the most important character and actor, but from what OI understand he only has a very MINOR part near the end. In that case, shouldn't they be able to get some of the other case members at least small roles even in this film? Not saying they have shoehorn them all in just for fan-service but it would seem plausible that at least some of them are still around there in the very same Blade Runner universe and hey all had insight that was very relevant to Deckard and the case he was working on. Given hat the premise of the film is the search for Deckard, it would seem logical that anyone looking for him, like "Agent K", would start out by checking with his previous associates.

Also, I seem to remember reading that Tyrell supposed to be a replicant. If so, it would be reasonable to assume there are other who bear his likeness, or that the original Tyrell is around somewhere, which would make for an appropriate appearance by Joe Turkel (who is still alive and in good health by the way).

Anyway, any one else who reacted at this and found it strange?

[–] SloppyJ30 8 years ago

With all the time that's passed between the two stories, there is zero reason to automatically throw in anyone from the first film. Making 2049 at least somewhat about Deckard (or the search for Deckard, as I understand) makes sense because . . well, because Harrison Ford.

Walsh is 81 and Hong is 87; would we visit them in a futuristic nursing home? What would they be doing at that advanced age that could possibly serve the story? Olmos was a fairly minor character; he could conceivably show up, but they would have to be careful to avoid the "fan service" thing. And Sean Young is a terrible actress and strange human being.

The absence of all of these characters has nothing to do with this being a good or bad movie. I have high hopes, even though initially I was very skeptical. I thought the time had long since passed for a BR sequel, but they got Ford to agree, have a supposedly strong script, and have a talented director in charge. We'll see.

-------------------------

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

[–] cazzo9 8 years ago

I totally get your point and that was why I was careful to point out that this was not a request for "fan-service". My idea of the "Bryant" character would be that he would be either retired or still working at the force behind some desk, with Agent K picking his brains about what kind of an agent Deckard was and how he disobeyed orders and deserted from the force etc. However, in the case of Olmos' Gaff, the original ended on such a note that it was heavily implied that he was on to Deckard, as signaled by the origami unicorn and his parting statement to him "but then again, we don't live forever now, do we?", suggesting that he was going to give Deckard the slip. Given the fact that that the film ended on this note, it would make sense to make this some kind of point of departure, that perhaps Gaff hadn't given up completely (because he certainly didn't seem like the type who would just "give up". Perhaps he was still hunting Deckard or maybe he would be protecting him? This would make for an interesting story arc in the plot. Also, the concept of origami features prominently throughout Blade Runner and it is indeed attributed to the Gaff character as he is the one making all the figures.

[–] SloppyJ30 8 years ago

In theory any of that could've worked, but I'm kinda glad they didn't go that route. None of it seems plausible. I'm 45 this week, and very few people I associated with when I was 20 are still anywhere in my circle of friends, and if we're talking professionally, literally no-one is. The thought of me finding some old, retired former colleague and asking for advice is, frankly, weird.

I get you; I think on some level every fan of a respected older film wants to see the same characters and actors on screen again. I also think that would result in a lot of disappointment. A good director and writer will protect fans against their own worst tendencies.

-------------------------

I have meddled with the primal forces of nature and I will atone.

[–] Kylo_Ren 8 years ago

Ford is second billing in the film after Gosling. So no, it's not a small part.

[–] cazzo9 8 years ago

Second billing doesn't need to mean much. Mark Hamill was second billing after Harrison Ford in Star Wars Episode VII, and he was in it for literally less than 30 seconds right at the end of the movie, with no spoken lines. So Ford's role could very well be nominal at best.

[–] Robot-Werewolf 8 years ago

James Hong

They didn't end up going with the scene featuring his frozen corpse, but has anyone ever really thought that the replicants allowed Chew to live?

[–] cazzo9 8 years ago

Well, sort of yes. In the 1997 Westwood video game, which features as sort of a quasi-sequel/interquel, we do see Chew (with Hong reprising the role) in what chronologically appears to be AFTER his encounter with the replicants. So he could very well have survived the day. We also find out that Holden survived and "will be ok", although the actor who played him died a few years ago so it wouldn't really make much point in bringing him back.