http://gamingtrend.com
July 29, 2014, 02:47:47 PM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
News:
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Blade Runner Revisited [spoilers!]  (Read 2593 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« on: October 13, 2004, 09:59:03 PM »

Let me start off by first saying, before the other night, I never really GOT Blade Runner.  Sure I own it, and sure if someone asked me I'd rave about how good it was, but let's be honest... if I didn't say that I'd be thrown out and lynched by my fellow geeks (only half kidding). smile

Anyway, I was bored the other night and threw it in... mostly so if anyone asked what I did the night before I could sound "geek cool" and say I watched Blade Runner: The Director's Cut.  But damn if it didn't finally sink in to me just how good that movie is on so many levels.

Everything from finally seeing the connection that proved Deckard was a replicant, to the reason why some areas in the film looked abandoned, to the symbology of Roy and and the nail at the end of the film... I finally got it.

So that said I still had a few things I was curious if anyone else had opinions on.  First of course is the whole "Is Deckard a Replicant" question.  I'm fairly convinced that, at least in the director's cut, he is, but I think it's still an open question.

Next is Gaff.  Any thoughts on what he was supposed to be?  Accepting that Deckard is a replicant I'm inclined to think he is something of a handler for him, or at least was in charge of checking up on him to make sure he was on task.  Perhaps he's even the one that Deckard's memories are made from.

The way I looked at the final scene was like something of a resurrection story.  Roy used the nail to keep his hand functioning, but more than that I think it was Ridley Scotts way of painting Roy as something of a greater figure.  In sparing Deckard he, the fake human, showed more compassion than the real humans seemed capable of, and in that way was more human than they were.

I also really enjoyed all the overtones of "what makes us so different from the replicants".  Always wondering when our time will end, etc.

Anyway just curious how many here are fans of the film, or if there's anyone besides me that just didn't get it.
   
s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
ravenvii
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 2015



View Profile
« Reply #1 on: October 13, 2004, 10:08:51 PM »

I only saw this movie once, on the Sci-Fi channel to make it even worse- and I didn't get it at all. Sure, I got the story and what happened, but basically I thought the movie sucked.

Guess I'd do myself a favor and check out the director's cut.
Logged
Odin
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 172



View Profile
« Reply #2 on: October 13, 2004, 10:09:06 PM »

Can you enlighten me as to the evidence that Deckard's a replicant? I've never quite clicked on that one myself.

Sith
Logged

Formerly Sith Lord
archipelago
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 44


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: October 13, 2004, 10:21:30 PM »

Blade Runner is one of my favorites - in both the geek and non-geek way, as you put it.

As well, it took years of rewatching and, basically, growing up for all of the themes you have talked about to really sink in. And that's what I say makes a great film.

As for the Decard replicant / not a replicant issue - I glean the most enjoyment from...not knowing. The most rare and remembered films, for me at least, are those that, upon viewing, you know there are facets that are left to you to evaluate for yourself, rather than being spelt out for you after the climatic car chase at the end. Actually I was pretty bitter when R. Scott announced a bit back that "Of course, Deckard's a replicant. I always planned that." Thanks, but no thanks - I liked you better before you pull a pseudo Lucasinian "Greedo shoots first. I always planned that" decades down the road.

Honestly, I still find new textures, new angles every time I rewatch the movie (which, now that it's brought to my mental fore, I may have to do again tonight); new meaning in the stressing of delivered lines. Am I inventing a lot of the depth in my own mind? Probably. But isn't that what it should be all about?
Logged

the artist previously known as Adumir
STILL resident Kielslowski and Jennifer Jason Leigh obsessive
"Obviously, I need more Merlot..."
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: October 13, 2004, 10:22:50 PM »

Quote

Can you enlighten me as to the evidence that Deckard's a replicant? I've never quite clicked on that one myself.

Ooops, forgot to mention that above.

Like I said, I think it only really paints it out in the director's cut, but there's 2 things I picked up on this time:

1. If you notice in the movie at one point or another all the replicants move into the light just right and their eyes turn redish.  This happens to Deckard at one point in his apartment with Rachael.

2.  This is the real proof IMHO, but at one point in the movie Deckard convinces Rachael that she's a replicant by telling her memories of hers that no one but her should know... about the spider and playing doctor.  Later in that scene Deckard has a dream of a unicorn, but never says anything about it.  Then at the end of the movie as Deckard is leaving with Rachael he finds the origami unicorn that Gaff left there.  I took that to be a message from Gaff to Deckard that Gaff knew about that and was after him.

There's a few other ways I think you could read the unicorn, but this one makes sense, and if not this, then the whole unicorn dream sequence is pretty pointless and strange. :?

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
gameoverman
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1422


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: October 13, 2004, 10:25:37 PM »

I'm withholding judgement on this film, beyond the 'I enjoyed it' type, until after the REAL, final director's cut is released(if ever).  Hopefully they can work out the legalities before I die of old age.
Logged
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #6 on: October 13, 2004, 10:26:21 PM »

Quote

 I glean the most enjoyment from...not knowing

That's a good point.  It's odd that in the theatrical cut there is absolutely nothing I can find that's proof of Deckard being a replicant, only in the director's cut is it apparent.

I also read an interview with Harrison Ford a while back where he disputed Deckard being a replicant.  He said RS specifically told him Deckard was not a replicant.  Who knows if that was to get him to perform differently or what, but interesting none the less.

You're absolutely right though... it's definitely a movie that needs to digest for a while.

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
archipelago
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 44


View Profile
« Reply #7 on: October 13, 2004, 10:37:59 PM »

Another "clue" that I believe has since been discounted regards the fact that there seems to be one replicant missing from the group Deckard is hunting and it became believed that HE was the missing one, "reprogrammed" or some such. I don't recall how, but this was explained away by either an altering of a scene in the DC or simple math error on the part of hopeful fans.

EDIT: Looked it up - There was originally going to be another replicant ("Betty) but she was cut out. Bryant's line of how many replicants were left was a mistake based on an older version of the script.

If nothing else, Deckard sure takes a HELL of a lot of punishment thoughout the film - certainly by normal human standards.  smile
Logged

the artist previously known as Adumir
STILL resident Kielslowski and Jennifer Jason Leigh obsessive
"Obviously, I need more Merlot..."
Biyobi
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 718


View Profile
« Reply #8 on: October 13, 2004, 10:39:23 PM »

For the record, he's NOT a replicant and the only real version of that movie was the original WITH the voice over!!! :x
Logged
archipelago
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 44


View Profile
« Reply #9 on: October 13, 2004, 10:41:45 PM »

Quote from: "Biyobi"
For the record, he's NOT a replicant and the only real version of that movie was the original WITH the voice over!!! :x


I liked some of the voice-over (Sure wish I had that version on tape as well for completionist purposes!) but, god, that sappy happy happy ending (with footage ripped from The Shining, no less) is best burned and buried!
Logged

the artist previously known as Adumir
STILL resident Kielslowski and Jennifer Jason Leigh obsessive
"Obviously, I need more Merlot..."
warning
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 7325



View Profile
« Reply #10 on: October 13, 2004, 10:42:18 PM »

Quote from: "Biyobi"
For the record, he's NOT a replicant and the only real version of that movie was the original WITH the voice over!!! :x


Harrison Ford supposedly hated doing that voice over.  I read/heard once that he tried to just "phone in" the performance for the VO in the hopes that the studio would hate the way he did it and cut it from the film.

Apparently it backfired on him.
Logged
The Mad Hatter
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 30


View Profile
« Reply #11 on: October 13, 2004, 11:51:09 PM »

The only real version of the story is the original book, "Do Androids dream of electric sheep?". At least it's a better Philip K. Dick conversion than Minority Report.
Logged
lildrgn
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1406


It's not the years, it's the mileage.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #12 on: October 13, 2004, 11:54:19 PM »

BR fans should all read this. Pretty good "behind the scenes" book about the making of Blade Runner.

I really need to get this DVD again and check it out.

edit to remove [/url] tag from end of post. Why does this forum software hate my people?
Logged

malichai11
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 134


View Profile
« Reply #13 on: October 14, 2004, 12:43:09 AM »

Quote from: "warning"
Quote from: "Biyobi"
For the record, he's NOT a replicant and the only real version of that movie was the original WITH the voice over!!! :x


Harrison Ford supposedly hated doing that voice over.  I read/heard once that he tried to just "phone in" the performance for the VO in the hopes that the studio would hate the way he did it and cut it from the film.

Apparently it backfired on him.


Harrison Ford refuted that in a recent Playboy interview. He seemed a little annoyed and angry by the question too. He stated that he did the voice over to the best of his ability.
Logged
Smoove_B
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 43


View Profile
« Reply #14 on: October 14, 2004, 12:58:26 AM »

Quote from: "The Mad Hatter"
The only real version of the story is the original book, "Do Androids dream of electric sheep?". At least it's a better Philip K. Dick conversion than Minority Report.


Absolutely. Read that book before entertaining any thoughs as to whether or not he's a replicant.

One of my Top 10 stand alone stories.
Logged
JSHAW
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 125


View Profile
« Reply #15 on: October 14, 2004, 01:02:34 AM »

I liked the music score by Vangelis. It had a very cool sound to it.
Logged
ericb
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 1650



View Profile
« Reply #16 on: October 14, 2004, 03:34:21 AM »

Sorry to burst anyone's bubble but in the last interview I remember reading (a few years ago) Scott specifically said that yes he was a replicant.  Sorry I can't find the interview now but I remember a fairly long thread about it on gonegold (now long gone).
Logged
Rhinohelix
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 238


View Profile
« Reply #17 on: October 14, 2004, 05:24:47 AM »

This was actually the subject of my first post at GG.  I actually prefer Greedo shooting first to Deckard is a replicant.  It removes the central theme from the movie and the story if Deckard is a replicant.  You have the human Deckard, for whom emotions should come naturally, with muted or very little emotion ("My wife calls me "cold fish" or something to that effect.)  pursuing the replicants, who are fighting simply for life, struggling with emotions they have no experience controlling.   Deckard is weak and fragile; the replicants are almost unkillable, strong and fast like no human ever was.  Deckard is killing on orders;  The replicants are doing just what they need to survive. It makes for a stark contrast.    Without that contrast you just have a weak machine hunting stronger machines, really.  I asked this before, but if Deckard is a replicant, what is a (any) central theme of the movie?

To me, the unicorn was referring to Rachael or more pointedly Deckard's relationship with Rachael:  something unique, the stuff of fairy tales.

Roy's confrontation with Tyrell is a perfect metaphor of Man's relationship with the Deity, from a certain perspective, and a powerful scene that sticks with you.

Its Scott's movie but I MUCH prefer the original version.  I could give or take the voice over.  I think it adds a certain noir quality to the film but I didn't miss it in the director's cut.  I think that the tacked-on ending was lacking in subtlty but I didn't have a problem with the ending being made more clear.

Not that I have strong feelings in the matter. smile

Rhino
Logged

Dance with the Devil and the Devil doesn't change.  The Devil changes you.
Montag
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 97


View Profile
« Reply #18 on: October 14, 2004, 01:59:45 PM »

Deckard was not a replicant.  Ridley Scott wanted to make him one.  If you would compare the theatrical 1981 release versus the worthless directors cut - you can see the extra unicorn dream scene with and the unicorn oragami link.  He also cut out the Deckard monologues.  The director's cut is crap and the 1981 version is out of print.  :x
Logged
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #19 on: October 14, 2004, 02:24:11 PM »

Certainly some interesting points here.

Honestly, for better or worse, I don't think the director's cut leaves much room to debate whether Deckard is a replicant... I mean, the fact that Gaff is showing him an image from his head is much too reminicent of what Deckard did to Rachael to ignore.

I can agree with the point that some of the themes change if he is a replicant, however I still believe there are things to take away from the film, and still some stong central themes.

For instance with Deckard being a replicant for so long and not realizing it, we are forced to confront more directly the idea that memories are what make us, and little more.  We are all forced to face the reality we are presented with.  Also, in the end when he realizes he's a replicant he's faced with the bit of contempt he felt for Rachael earlier in the movie ("How can it not know what it is?") and it's now directed back on himself.

Also, is this not saying that we are all tools of "the maker"?  Some of us may realize it and accept it, but some people may never know.

I'll defintely need to watch through the film again with a more critical eye to that, I'm not entirely sure which idea I like better at the moment, but I think I'm inclined to agree though that the idea that Deckard is not a replicant makes for a much more solid central theme, but there are still many angles to the story I need to digest I think.

It's been so long since I've seen the original, I'd like to watch it again to contrast, but the chances of seeing that are pretty slim from my understanding... :|

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
Redfive
Gaming Trend Reader

Offline Offline

Posts: 141


View Profile
« Reply #20 on: October 14, 2004, 02:35:10 PM »

What a great movie.  Every time I watch it I marvel at the setting and environment.  The music is perfect.  The world is gritty (and 20 years ago this 2017 looked like it could be credible).

I only have the director's cut and have but vague memories of the theatrical release.  What was the footage from The Shining that was recycled?
Logged

Stranger in a strange land.

Gamertag:  red51ve
Sepiche
Gaming Trend Senior Member

Offline Offline

Posts: 723


View Profile
« Reply #21 on: October 14, 2004, 02:43:30 PM »

Quote

What was the footage from The Shining that was recycled?

I think they are referring to some footage that was unused in the shining that showed a car driving into the wilderness.

Something like that I think, but I have never seen the scene in question.

s
Logged

And when he had failed to find these boons in things whose laws are known and measurable, they told him he lacked imagination, and was immature because he preferred dream-illusions to the illusions of our physical creation
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.112 seconds with 67 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.023s, 2q)