Blade Runner

[nebbit]

Last week I was talking to a friend about this great movie. He tells me that the Harrison Ford character is a replicant! :yup:

His theory is that the other replicant hunter [chinese guy] knew and that is why he left the paper unicorn behind, as the unicorn is a mythical creature which means so was the Harrison Ford character.

Is this true? what do others think? How come I didn't see it? :goof:

[MyRobotSuit]

The other replicant hunter Gaff, puts down the paper unicorn to let Deckard (Harrison) know that he is a replicant. Deckard dreams of a unicorn and this shows that he is a replicant as his dreams have been implanted as other replicants have (Rachael). Gaff knows Deckards dreams just as Deckard knows Rachaels.

There are many clues througout the movie so watch it again to find them. By the way this is my favourite movie of all time so I'm glad you watched it again!

[nebbit]

The other replicant hunter Gaff, puts down the paper unicorn to let Deckard (Harrison) know that he is a replicant. Deckard dreams of a unicorn and this shows that he is a replicant as his dreams have been implanted as other replicants have (Rachael). Gaff knows Deckards dreams just as Deckard knows Rachaels.

There are many clues througout the movie so watch it again to find them. By the way this is my favourite movie of all time so I'm glad you watched it again!

I love this movie also, I can be a moron sometimes as I didn't even get that, I always wondered about the unicorn.

Thanks Mini. :up:

[Golgot]

What are the other clues Mini? Is it something in the way the designer guy talks to him?? I don't remember any others, but it is a very involved film (and i've only read a bare-bones "intermediate-international-reader" version of "do androids dream of electric sheep", which confused me until i realised i can tell you. I didn't think P.Dick wrote like a baby ;))

[Charade]

This is true but i didnt get the clues before i watched the Directors Cut. I think this is because the original suffered from the production company feared that the movie would be too depressing or something? I think i have read something about this but im not sure if its true. Its been many years since i saw that original cut.

[The Silver Bullet]

"It's too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"

[MyRobotSuit]

I love that quote. It still send the shivers down my back.

[Golgot]

I love that quote. It still send the shivers down my back.

Ahh, that's unicorn-making-guy isn't it. Yeah, i remember watching the ****ed-up-cut originally, with that faux-detective voice-over by an obviously unimpressed Harrison. The director's cut is much more satisfying (tho i probably wouldn't have followed it without the first one ;))

[nebbit]

Thanks people, so it is the Directors cut that I need to watch. :D

[Wolfdangler]

I love this movie also, I can be a moron sometimes as I didn't even get that, I always wondered about the unicorn.

Thanks Mini. :up:

[Beale the Rippe]

Watch the Directors cut, and he is a replicant.

[Mark]

I just bought Bladerunner on DVD, but I don't know if I have the Director's cut or not. I haven't seen the film in many, many years, but I got it for $8.95 for pre-ordering LoTR: Two Towers.

[nebbit]

I just went to check my DVD and it is the Directors cut so I will watch it this week. :D

[The Silver Bullet]

Watch the Directors cut, and he is a replicant.
Ah, not exactly. It's still all open to interpretation. The Director's Cut does indeed suggest that Deckard may be a replicant. But it's still nothing concrete.

I, of course, being me, like to think he is.

[nebbit]

Ah, not exactly. It's still all open to interpretation. The Director's Cut does indeed suggest that Deckard may be a replicant. But it's still nothing concrete.

I, of course, being me, like to think he is.

I like the iedea that a human might fall in love with a replicant, now if he is then there is no point to the relationship :bawling:

[MyRobotSuit]

Take a look at this article and you may be happy. It confirms from the director, Ridley Scott if he is indeed a replicant.

Article here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/825641.stm)

[Holden Pike]

The so-called "director's cut" doesn't just "suggest" that Deckard is a Replicant, it finally explains and exclaims it. I don't need Ridley telling me in an interview, I knew it the glorious moment I first saw the director's cut on the big screen back in '92 (maybe my favorite theater experience ever, at the old Uptown in Washington, D.C.). The answer is right there, in the text of the film. End of debate.

http://www.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Thumbs/1304059_Unicorn.jpg http://www.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Thumbs/3514730_Deckard_Unicorn.jpg http://www.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Thumbs/3514735_Deckard_Unicorn.jpg

Deckard being a Replicant adds so much to that already densely layered film for me. Far from making the Deckard/Rachel relationship less, it expands on the main themes of the film, specifically the Tyrell motto "More Human Than Human". The Replicants in the movie, including Deckard, turn out to be a good deal more humane than their human counterparts throughout. The point, it seems to me, is that being human is more than just how you're wired, be it biological or mechanical. Life and love are precious, and those who value them are the ideal. Deckard and Rachel and the tragic Roy Batty learn this. Because of the incept dates, our couple is doomed to a short existence, and it's too bad they won't live. But then again, who does?


But what the Hell do I know? I've only seen the flick - all the various versions, about two-hundred times, easy, including the director's cut over ten times theatrically. Condemn it for making Deckard a Repicant if you must. Harrison Ford sure did (moron). Think whatever you want, you're free to do so, of course. But I also run into folks who don't think Verbal Kint is Keyser Soze or that Catherine Tramell was the icepick killer. You CAN ignore the answers the text gives, but it seems more than a bit silly to me.


And now, on with the opera!

[The Silver Bullet]

I had never seen it, 'till we started studying it in English Studies this year, and I hated it. With a passion. Then I rewatched it, on my own time [though, still for English] with headphones, in a dark room. Verdict?

One of the greatest movies of all time.

[MyRobotSuit]

I don't know why I'm even compelled to reply again but I have to because I love this film. There's rumour of a special edition dvd coming out sometime next year so fingers crossed. Holden I'm so jealous you got to see it in the cinema, I was 0 on first release and in 1992 I was about 11 so I was underage. I wish they'd re-release it again but as with other re-re-re-re-re-releases they come out sort of dated and unpersonal (star wars?) . Oh Well.

[Golgot]

yeah, lovely take on it the tho Holden. The idea that the ability to love, as it were, is the ideal peak of any developing thing

(and by default, there's an add on, that the callous humans are using their mis-understood tools in such a manipulative, uncaring, "unloving" way. Not that technology will dehumanise us, but bring out the worst in us perhaps. My own twisted little reading into it. Doubt it's meant that way ;))

[Beale the Rippe]

Lovely Holden. :up:

[tetsuo]

Check it out, I've returned to it time and time again for some of the background on the movie, it's a great book!

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0061053147/ref=cm_bg_d_10/002-5218002-3208858?v=glance

[uconjack]

Blade Runner was tremendous.

I saw an interview with Harrison Ford last week where he said he fought with Scott because he wanted his character to be human. He lost the argument and I think that is why Ford never supported the movie, although now he is finally coming around (probably because he has been in 4 or 5 straight dogs).

The one thing I spotted in the movie that I have never seen in discussion is why Roy Batty saves Deckard from falling. Did anyone else see it?

[Holden Pike]

The one thing I spotted in [BladeRunner] that I have never seen in discussion is why Roy Batty saves Deckard from falling. Did anyone else see it?

Well, in the original versions of the film, Deckard muses in voice-over, "I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last few moments he loved life more than he ever had before? And not just his life, anybody's life. My life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us wanted: where do I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die."

So there's that. Also, I think Batty wanted somebody to share those last moments with as his batteries finally ran down for good.

[uconjack]

If you watch closely just as Batty is about to drop Deckard, Deckard spits at him. Batty gets an incredulous look in his face and saves him. Perhaps he admired a machine more perfect than himself (capable of real emotion) or maybe he didn't know he was a machine and was incredulous of this last act of irrational human defiance.

[Holden Pike]

If you watch closely just as Batty is about to drop Deckard, Deckard spits at him. Batty gets an incredulous look in his face and saves him. Perhaps he admired a machine more perfect than himself (capable of real emotion) or maybe he didn't know he was a machine and was incredulous of this last act of irrational human defiance.

Yeah, he admired Deckard's refusal to give up or ask for help. Sure. But there's more to it than that. Remember what he said before he grabbed him: "Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave." He's referring most plainly to his forced role as a machine offworld that he and the other Replicants rebelled against, but I think also more abstractly it's about being a slave to mortality. In that instant, Batty decided to become the benevolent enxtender of life to Deckard that Tyrell could not be to him, and in that action came closer to being human than divine. His immortality, he finally sees (too late), is not about his body continuing to function indefinitely, but rather having done and seen wonderful things that might last with those who knew and loved him. Because he chose to fight against his death rather than embrace and celebrate his life, ultimately he has nobody to share these memories with except his hunter, Deckard, and all those moments will be lost in time...like tears in rain.

I think (therefore I type).

[LordSlaytan]

Wow. I wish I could think that deeply about film.

[Holden Pike]

Wow. I wish I could think that deeply about film.

Well, I've only seen it a couple hundred times. And it's definitely one of those films working on more than just one or two simple levels. Pauline Kael rather dismissively critized BladeRunner for being "all subtext and no text", and while that's a great line (she was a witty old broad), I disagree very much. There is MUCH going on in BladeRunner, textually and subtextually. It's a frippin' brilliant flick.

[uconjack]

Leonard Maltin also says in his movie book that it a movie with very little plot.

What movie did he see?

Blade Runner is a movie you could see a hundred times and have it get better with each viewing. Sometimes masterpieces are created almost by accident, like Casablanca, and I think this was another instance of that.

[Sedai]

It's a frippin' brilliant flick.

Yep.

I knew there were a zillion reasons why this is my favorite film ever, and Holden just added a couple more (well done, btw). Batty's soliloquy is one of the most amazing scenes in film, ever, IMO. I am moved every time, without fail, and although I can't top Mr. Pike's screen time on this one, I have seen it over 100 times, and will watch it again tonight, as it has been a few weeks. ;)

Thanks for reminding me it was time to watch BladeRunner again.

Cheers :D

[Holden Pike]

Sometimes masterpieces are created almost by accident, like Casablanca, and I think this was another instance of that.

Sometimes.

But I wouldn't put BladeRunner in that class. The film is so strong and indelible because of Ridley Scott's vision, coupled with the source material and very good screenplay drafts, and most crucially because he was aided in bringing that to life by some amazing artists and technicians. Scott was apparently pretty hard on the crew, but judging from what's there on the screen, I'd say he was justified in his mania and drive to get it done exactly his way. The only real "accident" of it all comes in the rift between director and star during filming, that in spite of disgreeing with Ridley, Harrison Ford gives a great performance in a film that is deeper than I think he appreciated at the time (or that he can still even acknowledge today).

But it was no "accident" the ways Casablanca was.

[Sedai]

I have come to some of the same conclusions about how exceptional films get made. As I posted in the X2 thread (X2 is no BladeRunner, but I like it quite a bit), Mr. Singer had stated how something special had happened to elevate the film above what it could have been. A certain chemical reaction, so to speak, in which all the people involved (crew included) added something extra, be it vision, technical skill, script ideas, or set changes. This concept, again coupled with a director of extrordinary talents, and strong source material, help the film rise a bit above, or in the case of Bladerunner, way above, what could have been.

I don't see this as an accident, just many talented people coming together to create exceptional art in film. To create something more than the sum of all parts.


EDIT

While on the subject I just read this (http://www.brmovie.com/Analysis/HtBaU-00.htm), and it seems Mr. Philip K. Dick had some interesting ideas, and was also quite mad.

[Holden Pike]

It seems Mr. Philip K. Dick had some interesting ideas, and was also quite mad.

Oh, sure. It's a fairly well-known fact that P.K. Dick was insane, and fought through periods where he was barely coherent. Other than reading some of his journals - which are a dense trip through a paranoid, drug-addled and schizophrenic mind (and a section of which was published as In Pursuit of Valis: Selections from the Exegesis), probably the best insight into his madness is his novel Valis, which I think is one of his very best books, and is a very thinly-veiled account of one of his major delusional periods when he thought a bright light he kept experiencing was either a message from outer space, the govermnent trying to read his mind, God almighty or all some combination of all three.

He was a great writer, and sadly by the time he had more or less conquered his demons (at least for a long stretch) and Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? was being made into a major motion picture starring Han Solo and directed by the bloke who made Alien giving him the highest profile of his long writing career, Phil Dick died of heart failure.

Bummer.

http://www.philipkdick.com/images/portrait-pkdsitting.jpg

[Sedai]

I found "How to build a Universe...." a fascinating read. Like a little window into a deranged mind (well, a different deranged mind for once, ;))

I must dig up some of his works you mentioned, as I have only read DADoES.

[Golgot]

I have come to some of the same conclusions about how exceptional films get made. As I posted in the X2 thread (X2 is no BladeRunner, but I like it quite a bit), Mr. Singer had stated how something special had happened to elevate the film above what it could have been. A certain chemical reaction, so to speak, in which all the people involved (crew included) added something extra, be it vision, technical skill, script ideas, or set changes. This concept, again coupled with a director of extrordinary talents, and strong source material, help the film rise a bit above, or in the case of Bladerunner, way above, what could have been.

I don't see this as an accident, just many talented people coming together to create exceptional art in film. To create something more than the sum of all parts.


EDIT

While on the subject I just read this (http://www.brmovie.com/Analysis/HtBaU-00.htm), and it seems Mr. Philip K. Dick had some interesting ideas, and was also quite mad.

Totally agree. Here's a good quote from the beginning of the doc A Decade Under the Influence. "Cinematic success is not necessarily the result of good brainwork... but of a harmony of existing elements in ourselves that we may not have ever been conscious of... an accidental coincidence of our own preoccupations at a certain moment of life and of the publics". - Francois Truffaut, from The Films in my Life

I reckon there's as much serendipity involved in the formation of a good/meaningful film as there is conscious control over the elements by the participants. There's probably the potential for that kind of successful realisation-of-our-potentials and synchronistic collaboration in all of us, it's just a matter of making and letting it happen (and being lucky) i guess :). Stop me if i'm getting too pretentious ;)

And cheers for that Dick speech btw. I'm only three pages in and it's absolutely classic. Time i changed my sig too... ;)

EDIT: Ok, i'm on page 6 now, and he certainly is nuts ;). In a fun way tho :) And it certainly explains some of his odder creations. (i'm hoping he moves away from the idea that reality is really and eternal Judea circa AD 50 tho, but there you go :rolleyes: )

EDIT: Oh wow, he gets even nuttier on page seven ;). Shame he has to think any time anomalies/underlying-strangenesses would have to be rooted through a Holy Spirit who's best mates with Jesus. Heigh ho. Seems to have limited his options somewhat.

[Sedai]

Ya, ya know, I just was picking up some groceries and thinking about the essay, when I got hung up on the whole religious trip. Holden mentioned a drug addled mind, and various other issues affecting his psyche, and I got to thinking what led his mind down the religion road.

-Did the dementia trigger megalomaniacal episodes, inducing divine hallucinations, and focusing the mind on religious concepts, ultimately causing him to tie his own works in with The Bible as proof he had the divine connection?

-Did he get exposed to so much information, through research and writing, that there was some sort of informational breakdown (neuro-linguistic virus or Babel effect of some sort) that ultimately caused him to see a correlation between his own works and one of the first books (mayhap THE first book, but that is a topic for another thread ;)), which then triggered the divine connection delusions.

-Did he actually have divine connections?

-Had decades of science fiction writing finally taken it's toll, causing a psychotic break, rendering him a paranoid conspiricy theorist with a Christ complex, lost in his own worlds and the world of the The Bible, living the fiction?

- Is there any way for myself or anyone else to every even get a slight inkling as to what goes on in the deranged mind.

And last but not least, the question Mr. Dick would ask first.

- What is a deranged mind?

Quite the shopping trip I must say.

[nebbit]

Ya, ya know, I just was picking up some groceries and thinking about the essay, when I got hung up on the whole religious trip. Holden mentioned a drug addled mind, and various other issues affecting his psyche, and I got to thinking what led his mind down the religion road.

-Did the dementia trigger megalomaniacal episodes, inducing divine hallucinations, and focusing the mind on religious concepts, ultimately causing him to tie his own works in with The Bible as proof he had the divine connection?.

If only mental illness were so divine. :(

[Sedai]

Ah yes, but what IS mental illness? Some might consider sitting in traffic going to work for 40+ years, day after day, a mental illness. ;)

[Sedai]

Sorry for the double, but I thought some folks might be interested in the P K Dick site.....

http://www.philipkdick.com/

[nebbit]

Ah yes, but what IS mental illness? Some might consider sitting in traffic going to work for 40+ years, day after day, a mental illness. ;)

I think, if you meet someone who has severe schizophrenia then you know what mental illness is, sitting in a car to go to work, sometimes is a necessity, not mental illness. :)

[Sedai]

I think, if you meet someone who has severe schizophrenia then you know what mental illness is, sitting in a car to go to work, sometimes is a necessity, not mental illness. :)


Tis a necessity indeed. Regarding the schizo, what if they are sane and we are insane.... I think that is where I was going with this... It just makes me crazy! :babbling:

STILL haven't had a chance to pop in BladeRunner though, and THAT is definitely making me crazy!

[nebbit]

Tis a necessity indeed. Regarding the schizo, what if they are sane and we are insane.... I think that is where I was going with this... It just makes me crazy! :babbling:!

There is sometimes a fine line between sanity and madness, in the kind of work I used to do the line was well defined, and please don't use the word Schizo, it is a put down to people suffering a terrible illness, they don't have a lot of choice, whether they have it or not. :yup:

[linespalsy]

The only real "accident" of it all comes in the rift between director and star during filming, that in spite of disgreeing with Ridley, Harrison Ford gives a great performance in a film that is deeper than I think he appreciated at the time (or that he can still even acknowledge today).

i havent read up on the behind the scenes story but it's not my impression that this was necessarilly an accident either. if anything, couldnt his performance perhaps have been enhanced by the fact that harrison, like deckard, failed to appreciate the deep mechanics of the [film] world?

[save charles manson]

Has any one played the pc game. the story of that is set as the film is happening . the story of the game is the blade runner you play is a replicant.

[chicagofrog]

played it. won it after being killed 3748 times.

[SamsoniteDelilah]

I just rewatched this the other night, first time in a long time, and I'll admit I was puzzled by the ending. It may be crystal clear after a few watchings, but there's so much other good stuff going on that you can easily forget to work out the meaning of the unicorn, in favor of thinking about all the rest. I have been gobsmacked by Rutger Hauer's performance. The monologue when he's dying is so gorgeous, but the little details he puts into the character really make that scene at the end super-poignant. I hadn't put it together before why he and Priss seem so childlike, when they have the memory implants, but I relized this time through that they'd have rejected those memories, given the circumstances. So we're watching a four year old die with the full knowledge that he's barely lived. POW!!

The intelligence that went into the making of every part of this film and the dedication of the actors to situations that are so fantastic really construct this world for us. It's awesome filmmaking.

[SolidGold85]

Blade Runner is by far one of the greatest movies evar. Samsonite has a good point because that movie has soo much stuff going on and is so detailed that you can get lost in just looking at the scenes. So missing the fact that Deckard is a replicant would not be that hard to do.
But anyway, I love that movie to the core, one of my top 3 for sure.

[undercoverlover]

Blade Runner changed my life, well my viewing experiences anyway. Most excellent film.

[redhorse]

i just watched blade runner for the first time a few days ago and i wasn't that impressed with it. im a big fan of sci-fi flicks but this one seemed played out already considering the things that i have seen before it. IMO i think ghost in the shell does a better job of blurring the line between man and machine. metropolis, akira, and evangelion all have a better impact than this movie. still i watch it again just for the sake of it.

[nebbit]

i just watched blade runner for the first time a few days ago and i wasn't that impressed with it. im a big fan of sci-fi flicks but this one seemed played out already considering the things that i have seen before it. IMO i think cost in the shell does a better job of blurring the line between man and machine. metropolis, akira, and evangelion all have a better impact than this movie. still i watch it again just for the sake of it.

OMG you are not serious :eek:

[Escape]

OMG you are not serious :eek:You didn't like it either huh? ;D

[Pyro Tramp]

Is redhorse darkhorse's angry cousin?

[Sedai]

i just watched blade runner for the first time a few days ago and i wasn't that impressed with it. im a big fan of sci-fi flicks but this one seemed played out already considering the things that i have seen before it. IMO i think cost in the shell does a better job of blurring the line between man and machine. metropolis, akira, and evangelion all have a better impact than this movie. still i watch it again just for the sake of it.

Sorry, but I just can't agree. Blade Runner is so much more complex in it's philosophy than any of the shabby re-hashes you mention. GitS is a good anime, but it somehow manages to be obtuse and heavy handed at the same time. Akira and Blade Runner aren't really related, and they have a completely different theme, altogether. Evangelion is such overrated Voltron garbage, I just can't understand why it so popular. I could barely get through most of the episodes, and although it did have many deep issues running through it, as a whole, I found it to be a waste of time. Gasaraki is the mecha anime of choice, and it doesn't go the fan service route every three minutes like Evangelion or Escaflowne. That stuff is BEAT at this point...

Have you seen Blade Runner more than once? A film so complex in it's scoial and human issues can't be ingested in one viewing, or two, or three for that matter. The more one watches BR, the more the onion-like layers of the film begin to appear.

One of the best films every put to celluloid, IMO.

[redhorse]

the camera angles just seem kind of distant at times and harrison ford looks spaced out for a good portion of the movie. maybe he drank on and off the set...i don't know. yes, blade runner asks a lot of interesting questions but i don't find them as profound as others. these are questions a inquestive child would ask and of course get a response based on either science, religion, or both.

i think akira and BR do share similiarites considering they both deal with creation and try to define existance. akira deals more with the powers of god while BR asks "god" why they exist. still akira does bring the same questions to mind when i watch it. akira points out that everyone has the power to be a creator. the powers of god can be harnest and awakened within a individual. in BR the creator is killed by a replicant because he did not have a way to extend their life. both roy batty and tetsuo have powers that are far superior to normal to the point where they kill indiscriminately. in both movies they realize as they are dying what it was to be truely alive. now to me this suggest that either the power of life is just to much for some or without a creator to guide you in the right direction you are doomed from the start.

as for evangelion, that movie is more a mind f*** than BR. if you skip the last 2 eps of EVA and just go straight to the movie it's amazing. ghost in the shell is just more indepth and throws a lot more info for your brain to munch on. BR seems to leave things open ended which is fine but again these questions are not new. a little more dive into a replicants mind would have been nice.

Is redhorse darkhorse's angry cousin?

the red horseman is from revelations and brings war to the people. so....yeah i guess they could be cousins. :D

[Sedai]

the camera angles just seem kind of distant at times and harrison ford looks spaced out for a good portion of the movie. maybe he drank on and off the set...i don't know. yes, blade runner asks a lot of interesting questions but i don't find them as profound as others. these are questions a inquestive child would ask and of course get a response based on either science, religion, or both.

i think akira and BR do share similiarites considering they both deal with creation and try to define existance. akira deals more with the powers of god while BR asks "god" why they exist. still akira does bring the same questions to mind when i watch it. akira points out that everyone has the power to be a creator. the powers of god can be harnest and awakened within a individual. in BR the creator is killed by a replicant because he did not have a way to extend their life. both roy batty and tetsuo have powers that are far superior to normal to the point where they kill indiscriminately. in both movies they realize as they are dying what it was to be truely alive. now to me this suggest that either the power of life is just to much for some or without a creator to guide you in the right direction you are doomed from the start.

as for evangelion, that movie is more a mind f*** than BR. if you skip the last 2 eps of EVA and just go straight to the movie it's amazing. ghost in the shell is just more indepth and throws a lot more info for your brain to munch on. BR seems to leave things open ended which is fine but again these questions are not new. a little more dive into a replicants mind would have been nice.



the red horseman is from revelations and brings war to the people. so....yeah i guess they could be cousins. :D

Ha! man, I am so glad you mentioned those last Evangelion episodes, as they were such tripe. I didn't give the movie a go because I had such mixed feelings about the series, and, as I mentioned earlier, there was just way too much fan service in that show. I hated the music too. As for Akira, interesting points, but I still must state that Akira spends far too much time attempting to make the viewer experience tetsuo's head trip (actually, the sections I enjoy the most from the film, so it isn't a bad thing) rather than focus on the more profound aspects of the story/philosophy. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE Akira, and watch it quite a bit, as well, but the human connection is somewhat lost in the bizzare shuffle. The character arcs in Akira are also VERY hackneyed, and I feel this is one of the reasons many of the people who are turned off by Akira, are turned off.

Of course, I can't sit here and go on about clear character arc and narrative while defending Blade Runner, because it suffers a bit in that department, as well, but much less than something like Akira or GitS, the latter film having very little in the form of actual character development. Still, most of the characters in BR DO have clear arcs, and they get somewhere in their journies. This includes side players like Gaff and more important players like Rachel, as well.

As for the camera work in BR, the distance is used perfectly throughout the first portion of the film, only to resort to extreme angle and closeup in the latter half as the narrative actually gets moving. Interestingly, one of the scenes that was pulled from the test run was pulled because it was some close-up work that some of the crew felt exposed too much of the Batty character, too early. I will have to agree that Ridley et al. went ever so slightly overboard with this lens work, but I bet dollars to beans that these cats were overwhelmed by the amazing production design that was going on around them, and wanted to capture as much of it as possible in every shot. Also, Ridley is an old sketch guy, so I think his frames are almost always design driven, and rarely driven by the actors he can't seem to get along with. Comparing Alien and Aliens is a GREAT way to explore some of the concepts that make Ridley tick. Both are great films, but one is more character driven, while the other is all about the mis en scene and over all atmosphere...

Deckard looked spaced out? maybe it was a flaw in his circuitry... ;)

Regardless, GREAT post, and I hope you stick around for more!

[nebbit]

the red horseman is from revelations and brings war to the people. so....yeah i guess they could be cousins. :D

Oh no heeeeeeees back ;D

[Ford]

I really wanted to like this film, but I just couldn't get into it. I usually try watching it every few years, but most of the time I just start looking out the window or finding other things to do and just walk away from it. Maybe it's just beyond me, I dunno. I like the look of it visually, but on the whole it just seems overrated to me.

[Holden Pike]

Maybe it's just beyond me, I dunno?

Nope, that's it exactly, you've figured it out; it is just beyond you.

But that's cool. And now you know for sure.

[PimpDaShizzle V2.0]

This movie is full of bologne. If you watch it you go to hell.

[Holden Pike]

This movie is full of bologne. If you watch it you go to hell.
http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Thumbs/0701822_Tyrell_Rachael.jpg http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Thumbs/1103429_Photo.jpg http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Thumbs/2110350_Rachael_Deckard.jpg

My bologna has a first name, it's I-M-P-L-A-N-T-E-D. My bologna has a second name, it's M-E-M-O-R-I-E-S. Oh I love to dream them everyday, and if you ask my why I'll say, "'cause they don't want me to think I'm a robot, and that's why our motto is 'more human than human'."

[PimpDaShizzle V2.0]

http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Thumbs/0701822_Tyrell_Rachael.jpg http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Thumbs/1103429_Photo.jpg http://media.bladezone.com/contents/film/image-library/Thumbs/2110350_Rachael_Deckard.jpg

My bologna has a first name, it's I-M-P-L-A-N-T-E-D. My bologna has a second name, it's M-E-M-O-R-I-E-S. Oh I love to dream them everyday, and if you ask my why I'll say, "'cause they don't want me to think I'm a robot, and that's why our motto is 'more human than human'."
Why didn't someone just say that in the first place? Now I need to rent the damned movie again. Danred it all! :mad:

[John McClane]

Ah, Blade Runner. A huge fan, I am. Ever since about a year ago when I first got to catch this movie on TBS. I was also lucky enough to pick this DVD up in the $5.50 bin at Wal-Mart. I now get a chance to watch this movie whenever I get the urge. Thank god for capitalism. :)

[redhorse]

Ha! man, I am so glad you mentioned those last Evangelion episodes, as they were such tripe. I didn't give the movie a go because I had such mixed feelings about the series, and, as I mentioned earlier, there was just way too much fan service in that show. I hated the music too.

i garantee if you watch the movie you will no longer think of it as fan service because you will be a fan. the end of eva movie is to profound to put into words. all i can say is it creams the series in action, animation, and well good ol' fashion violence. it puts the series in perspective and finally gives the fans want they want. please, if you haven't seen the series or movie, go see them, then come back and post about it. skip the last 2 episodes and go straight to the movie. then you will understand my thoughts on blade runner.

[Pyro Tramp]

I've always wanted to watch Evangelion but have no idea where to start, films are the cheapest but i gather the worst place to start.

[Sedai]

Redhorse - Yeah, i have seen a lot of the series, but I eventually gave up on it. Some of the concepts were of course interesting and deep, but overall, I felt the series was sort of lackluster and repetitive. It's been a few years, though. I just remember sitting down to watch Gasaraki, and thinking "Now this is well doen existential mecha anime".

I will give the movie a watch, popping it into netflix now...

Also, all this BR talk was enough to get me watching it again last night.... I just couldn't resist!

[redhorse]

Redhorse - Yeah, i have seen a lot of the series, but I eventually gave up on it. Some of the concepts were of course interesting and deep, but overall, I felt the series was sort of lackluster and repetitive. It's been a few years, though. I just remember sitting down to watch Gasaraki, and thinking "Now this is well doen existential mecha anime".

I will give the movie a watch, popping it into netflix now...

Also, all this BR talk was enough to get me watching it again last night.... I just couldn't resist!

also since you've seen most of the series i think they have an ova or movie that raps up the whole series. if memory serves i think it's call evangelion death and rebirth. i would check animenfo.com just to make sure. that way u don't have to sit through shingi whining for 24 episdoes. :D

[tberg]

This movie still confuses me like crazy.

[Holden Pike]

This movie still confuses me like crazy.

How so? What specifically has you confused?

[7thson]

How so? What specifically has you confused?

Probably the part where you have to wake up because its time to die. Maybe..or not.

[Austruck]

Okay, I'm reviving this thread because I'm no longer part of the great unwashed. So now all you people have to come back and talk to me about it. (Hey, I did it with BSG -- I can do it here too!)

I said some of this in the shoutbox, but here's a repeat:

I saw the Director's Cut. I haven't seen the theatrical version yet, so don't spoil the apparently different ending. (It's next on Netflix, so it's only a few days.)

Second, I totally missed that he's a replicant? I have a good excuse, though. I didn't notice that the little origami figure was a unicorn. I just picked up that it was Olmos's origami, which meant he'd been there. Must have had a little too much glare on the TV screen.

So, without that bit of info, my thought on the ending was that Olmos had been there and knew Rachel was there, but for some reason let her go and didn't kill her himself. I assumed that was because of what he said ("It's a shame she's not going to live ....")

My thought was that it just wasn't worth killing her. She wasn't harming anyone and she'd have a short lifespan anyway, so why not let Deckard have his way this once?

I just sent back the movie to Netflix, so now I can't wait for the other version to show up (probably Saturday) so I can rewatch it and maybe pick up on that. (Or is that part missing from the other version??)

I loved the camera work in this movie, too. Every shot, every frame was like a work of art. I don't always notice such things, and when I do, it's often because the gorgeous camera work overshadows the story (or props up a bad story). But in this case, I was amazed at how much the great scenes and shots actually made a great story even better.

The music by Vangelis distracted me a teeny bit for the first few minutes, but then I realized it actually made things better too. It was different, not what I would have expected from a dark sci-fi movie, and yet it worked.

I still wonder why it's always nighttime and raining in L.A. in twelve years, but that's a different question.... :)

[Holden Pike]

I saw the Director's Cut. I haven't seen the theatrical version yet, so don't spoil the apparently different ending. (It's next on Netflix, so it's only a few days.)

I just sent back the movie to Netflix, so now I can't wait for the other version to show up (probably Saturday) so I can rewatch it and maybe pick up on that. (Or is that part missing from the other version??)

You'll want to take that off of your Netflix list. The Director's Cut is the only version that's ever been available on R1 DVD. I just looked up the listing on their site, and though they have one labeled as the D.C. and one not, they both are. The one is probably just the remastered disc, which has the same content just much better audio/video quality.

The long-awaited Special Edition that looks like it'll finally be out by the end of this year will have the original theatrical version in its features. But until then, Netflix don't got it.


Second, I totally missed that he's a replicant? I have a good excuse, though. I didn't notice that the little origami figure was a unicorn. I just picked up that it was Olmos's origami, which meant he'd been there. Must have had a little too much glare on the TV screen.

It's OK, most people missed it until like eight or nine years AFTER the D.C. had been released and Ridley Scott mentioned it in an interview. Then the young internet nerds went nuts, thinking they had a scoop when it was, like, in the text of the flick since 1991. Though I know walking out of the theatre the first time I saw it I had to explain it to a few patrons milling around outside, so you're most defnitely not alone on this score.


So, without that bit of info, my thought on the ending was that Olmos had been there and knew Rachel was there, but for some reason let her go and didn't kill her himself. I assumed that was because of what he said ("It's a shame she's not going to live ....").

My thought was that it just wasn't worth killing her. She wasn't harming anyone and she'd have a short lifespan anyway, so why not let Deckard have his way this once?

Yes, and without Deckard's unicorn dream, which was cut from the original 1982 release, that's exactly how one would read that scene and how it was thought of until the D.C. in the early 1990s. And just in case that sentiment isn't clear, the obtrusive Deckard voice over that follows in the original theatrical cuts says it aloud.

[Austruck]

How could you tell the Netflix *other* version isn't the theatrical one?

[Holden Pike]

How could you tell the Netflix *other* version isn't the theatrical one?

For one by clicking on the picture, which clearly shows the box for the D.C. But trust me, the Director's Cut is the only version of Blade Runner ever marketed on R1 DVD.

So unless Netflix is renting out bootlegs of the old LD or VHS that they've transferred to DVD, it is not the theatrical version.

[Sedai]

:)

Commenting on the Gaff (Olmos) stuff:

Gaff did know Deckard was hiding Rachel, and his final comment, which was, exactly: "Too bad she won't live, but, then again, who does?" is a great line, and speaks about many different things. On a physical level, he is talking about the shortened lifespan, and how she won't live, but, we also have a short lifespan, all things considered, which plays into the second part of his comment in a way.

Moving beyond the physical, while still applying to it, the whole "but then again, who does?" is not a question we can easily explain or answer, well, ever. Many think that our mortality is what defines us, and brings passion to our lives, because, if we had forever, why would anything matter at any given time, really? Gaff is asking, who REALLY lives, no matter what their origin? Who decides what a soul is, and who has a soul?

So, When Elden Tyrell is telling Roy to "revel in his time", he is speaking to us, as well. Tyrell wants to be (a)God, and plays one pretty well, creating (flawed) life, and Roy sees him as God, playing into his megalomania. We observe a conversation many of us have wanted to have at various points in our life, between ourselves and our (alleged) creator. Why am I here? Is this all? And most of all, why does it have to end... I'm not finished yet, I don't UNDERSTAND yet. Why?

Heavy ****.

Oh...we were talking about Gaff, replicants, and oragami...

I know you want to watch the theatrical run, but, damn, I HATE what they do with the end, I really do. It trashes the film and makes it seem shallow, IMO.

[Sedai]

Adding to Holden's words, I hope you got the new transfer when you watched it, as the one from the mid 90s is the worst DVD transfer out there. I watch a VCR tape of the Euro theater cut ( a bit more violent, some odd angle changes and reverses in the print) when I feel like listening to Deckard sleepwalk through a VO. My copy was a very thoughtful gift from someone you might know. :)

[Tacitus]

Adding to Holden's words, I hope you got the new transfer when you watched it, as the one from the mid 90s is the worst DVD transfer out there. I watch a VCR tape of the Euro theater cut ( a bit more violent, some odd angle changes and reverses in the print) when I feel like listening to Deckard sleepwalk through a VO. My copy was a very thoughtful gift from someone you might know. :)

I know you're a Blade Runner aficionado, Seds, but have you seen the Brit doc On The Edge Of Blade Runner?

I stumbled upon an old pile of VHS tapes a while back and it was on there - I can't even remember watching it at the time so cranked up the old VCR with a misty-eyed feeling of nostalgia when I saw the tracking lines appear on the screen...

Anyway, I digress, the doc is really rather good with interviews from cast and crew (only Sean Young and, quelle suprise, Ford are missing).

I found it on Google videos just in case you fancy a peek. Mark Kermode presents it, but don;t let the be-quiffed bufoon put you off. :)

Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3807826142091223684)

[Sedai]

Awesome, thanks. I haven't seen it!

[Holden Pike]

Yeah, unfortunately that British documentary didn't air in the U.S., and our first shot to see it other than streaming online or something is going to be that Special Edition disc, which includes it as a feature.

[Tacitus]

It's worth watching alone for Hauer's musings on the character of Deckard - "He gets a gun held to his head and ****s a dishwasher."

Gotta love Rutger. ;)

[Sedai]

Holden, have some linky info about the SE?

[nebbit]

Thanks Tatty that filled up the morning :)

[Holden Pike]

I don't. But I remember at every stage over the last few years they keep mentioning that "On the Edge of Blade Runner" is definitely going to be included, rights secured, blah-blah-blah. HERE (http://www.thedigitalbits.com/mytwocentsa121.html#brse) is some info from the good ol' DigitalBits.com from last year, basically recounting what broke about the rights issues last May.


http://ec1.images-amazon.com/images/I/51ApePyMwRL._AA240_.jpg http://www.georgehernandez.com/h/Media/People/RutgerHauer.jpg

For more musing by Rutger, he recently published his memoir All Those Moments: Stories of Heroes, Villains, Replicants and Blade Runners (ISBN 9780061133893). I bought it the other day, though I haven't had a chance to even crack it open yet, much less read it.

[Misterking]

Interesting, though I'm not sure how much of an authority Rutger Hauer is on this I applaud the effort. One thing's for sure, the Blade Runner DVD could use a serious revamping.

If there's one thing I've noticed lately it's that we are officially a generation removed. I watched Blade Runner with a friend who had never seen it, and by the end all he had to say was "kind of creepy". I realized later that he was confused but didn't really want to admit it. And why wouldn't he be? The movie is no less confounding than it was when it screened, which incidentally was the sole purpose of adding the awful narration. My friend had simply missed out not only on the movie, but all the conversations about its meaning that many of us grew up with. Ambiguity for the sake of itself is generally a bad thing, but Blade Runner is a bit of a conundrum in that nothing can be added without ruining it.

To that end I think its source material deserves a mention here, "Do Androids Dream of Electic Sheep?" by Phillip K. Dick. For one thing it explains Blade Runner's backdrop a little better, most notably the off-world colony and the mechanical animals. It's kind of amusing actually because Dekkard is a bit of a schlepp who gets lured into the job hoping to collect the bounty and buy...an ostrich. From what I remember the near-extinction of animals is only touched upon but I think its reason is biological. By extension ecology becomes religion and degenerates into tawdry fashion, to the point where no home is complete without the presence of a "rescued" animal, even if it's a fake one. Dekkard's ultimate goal at the onset is to show up his neighbor. This shallow-mindedness is about all people have, as most have moved to the colonies. The only people left on Earth are the ones who can't afford to leave and the magnates that profit from them.

Ridley Scott added much of the theological stuff for the movie but the result is astounding. I'd love to see a full remastering on par with what was done to Akira and of course some extras to enlighten newcomers. The only thing about Blade Runner showing its age in my opinion is the soundtrack, but hearing it still stops me dead in my tracks. I'd also like to see some footage of the theatrical cut being dropped into the fiery pit of Mount Doom.

[jrs]

Blade Runner: Ultimate Collection


Australian retailer ezydvd.com may have previously revealed the first-ever disc specs for the forthcoming Blade Runner: Ultimate Collection.

The following is what will be included in the Region 4 release, however don’t be too surprised if Region 1 gets the same thing. The street date is planned for sometime in September. We’ll keep you posted.

Features include:

Disc 1 - The Final Cut (2007)

* Ridley Scott’s definitive new version of his science-fiction masterpiece includes added & extended scenes, added lines and new and cleaner special effects.

Disc 2 - 3 Complete Film Versions

* ‘82 U.S. Theatrical version
* ‘82 International Theatrical version
* ‘92 Director’s Cut

Disc 3 - “Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner” Documentary

* Newly created documentary: Through interviews with the cast and crew, critics and colleagues, this feature-length documentary provides a mainstream-friendly yet meaningful in-depth look at Blade Runner’s literary genesis, its challenging production and controversial legacy. When all is said and done, this will be the definitive documentary on the film.

Disc 4 – Enhanced Content Bonus: (TBC)

* INCEPTION - Featurettes and galleries devoted to Philip K. Dick, the birth of Cyberpunk and adapting the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.

* PRE-PRODUCTION - Featurettes and galleries devoted to script development, conceptual design and abandoned sequences.

* PRODUCTION - Featurettes and galleries devoted to principal photography and locations.

* POST-PRODUCTION - Featurettes and galleries devoted to deleted scenes, music and visual effects.

* RELEASE - Featurettes and galleries devoted to marketing and reaction including Trailers, TV Spots and Promotional Featurettes

* LEGACY - Featurettes and galleries devoted to the film’s resurrection and impact.

Disc 5 - Work Print Version & Enhanced Content

* Including the rarely seen Work Print version and potentially the 52 min. Channel Four (UK) documentary which was the first serious documentary created for the film.

Additionally, the set will come packaged in a limited “Blade Runner” briefcase holding the five-disc digipack with foil-enhanced and embossed slipcase. The goodies inside will include a lenticular motion image from the original feature, a collectible model spinner, an origami unicorn, a collection of photographs and a letter from Ridley Scott.

Source: Davis DVD (http://www.davisdvd.com/news/spy.html)

[Austruck]

jrs, that's some good background on the source material there. We get only a hint of the animal situation when Joanna Cassidy's character says she can't afford a real snake. And I assumed the ostriches I saw running the streets were fake then too.

But we get no idea why a real snake would cost more ... so I was left to assume it was for the same reason artificially flavored foods are (amazingly) cheaper than foods flavored with the real thing. You just assume that, whatever it is, it's so bad that a technological advance like a realistic techno-snake costs less than the real thing.

I would have liked some of that background in the movie, but I can also see why Scott didn't put it in. Still, it makes the whole Cassidy scene just a tad perplexing and intriguing because of the contextless things she says.

[Sedai]

They also touch on it when Rachel and Deck talk about the owl. It does get brought up multiple times.

[Austruck]

Aha, yes, the owl. I wasn't putting two and two together there.

I'm bummed. The book of PKD stories I have doesn't have Electric Sheep in it. Maybe I'll just read The Minority Report instead. :)

[Holden Pike]

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/12190000/12191538.gif http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/8/85/PhilipDick.jpg

Well if you or anybody else are interested, the Modern Library just released Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? along with The Man in the High Castle, The Three Stigmata of Palmer Eldritch and Ubik in a single hardcover volume. Four of his best, for sure. The introduction to the collection is by Jonathan Letham (Motherless Brooklyn, Fortress of Solitude).

[Sedai]

Also check out Valis, which is totally mind bending and pretty steeeerange.... I read it this past year, and it was quite memorable.

[Misterking]

Also check out Valis, which is totally mind bending and pretty steeeerange.... I read it this past year, and it was quite memorable.

Oh man, that is my favorite trilogy ever. I highly recommend it.

[Austruck]

Lethem also did the intro for the collection I have (called, strangely enough, Selected Stories of Philip K. Dick). It has a bunch of stuff in it, but not what I want to be reading. Thanks for the lead on the other volume. I may have to buy it since our local library probably won't get it for ages!

[Ruthless Critic]

I finally had the time to watch The Final Cut (DVD).

I'm probably risking my neck here but does somebody else think that this is a fairly dull movie? Harrison does not convince and the plot is very simple.

I do understand why this is considered a classic. The effects are astonishing. You barely see any better ones nowadays...

[Skepsis93]

I'm probably risking my neck here but does somebody else think that this is a fairly dull movie? Harrison does not convince and the plot is very simple.

Ouch. Ruthless!

[all knowing]

In the director's final version Ridley Scott comments his vision was medieval future Hong Kong and the eyeball represents Orwellian Big Brother universe ran by no more than two or three corporations like Tyrell. He specifically mentions probably in the future the first who inherit the chaotic future events it's a mixture of both Japanese and Chinese people.
Of course, every director wants to believe in his own ingenuity without saying clearly from where they borrow things. He did some comments trying to underrate Avatar made by Cameron, a Canadian director who did an Alien sequence touching Ridley Scott's apple of his eye. They have their human envy and jealous like everyone else.
In this case the original idea came from Metropolis and the Japanese place of pleasure we see in that movie, a name taken for a Japanese restricted area for prostitutes during 17th Century as I said somewhere else.
YOSHIWARA
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshiwara


He mentions the neo-Egyptian pillars and we know in Metropolis the beast machine called Moloch like an ancient minotaurus from Canaan turns into an Egyptian sphinx.

[all knowing]

When he talks about the lights of the film he says there's something irritating for him to talk about certain "kind of governing systems" like beacons not spinning inwards. He stops talking about this and he knows how everything will end up. He wanted sounds for light scenes.

[Sedai]

What?

Anyway....very cool alternate trailer for BR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXFqPzAFv8o

[Lucas]

What?

Anyway....very cool alternate trailer for BR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXFqPzAFv8o

Awesome video. Blade Runner is my all-time favorite film, as is yours I see.

[Gideon58]

I'm pretty sure I'm in the minority on this, but BLADE RUNNER bored the crap out of me.

[mark f]

So you recommend it as a laxative?

[Tacitus]

So you recommend it as a laxative?

A pretty industrial one as well. I wonder what happened to that machine which dug the Channel Tunnel?

[Mr Minio]

He said it bored him, so I guess he'd rather recommend it as an insomnia cure.

[Guaporense]

Blade Runner ranks among my top 10 favorite science fiction movies. Truly a monumental work of art.

[skizzerflake]

It's one of my favorite movies, inspired by one of my favorite authors. Blade Runner didn't impress me all that much when I saw it way-back-when, but it's gotten better over the years. Each year we seem to get close to actually living in that world.

[doubledenim]

Happy Inception Day Kowalski ! (http://paleofuture.gizmodo.com/happy-inception-date-to-blade-runner-replicant-leon-kow-1794165700)

[Joel]

What?

Anyway....very cool alternate trailer for BR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXFqPzAFv8o


Very respectful trailer, best I've seen!

[Citizen Rules]

Very respectful trailer, best I've seen!Wholly off-world that was good! Now I want Riddley to edit yet another version of Blade Runner...this time I want a black & chrome Blade Runner, cut even slower...and edited to fit into the 1940s Film Noir & Hays Code era standards. With a new 1940s style music score to boot. That would be so cool.

[Guaporense]

What?

Anyway....very cool alternate trailer for BR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXFqPzAFv8o

Fallout Runner

[rambond]

can someone please explain to me the meanings of the unicorn statue we see in the movie...?

[Saunch]

Statue? You mean origami?

if so, in the director’s cut, Deckard has a dream about a unicorn. Later, at the end, Gaff leaves the paper unicorn for him to see, implying that he knows Deckard’s dreams because they’re implants (likely Gaff’s own) and Deckard is a replicant.

[The Rodent]

It'll take a minute or two, but...


It resembles the fact that Deckard's memories are known to other people, which means Deckard might be a Replicant.

[Citizen Rules]

can someone please explain to me the meanings of the unicorn statue we see in the movie...?Ahh...you have to discover the meaning for yourself.

[The Rodent]

It means the movie is based in the same universe as Ridley Scott's Legend?

[Citizen Rules]

It'll take a minute or two, but...


It resembles the fact that Deckard's memories are known to other people, which means Deckard might be a Replicant.IMO...It shows that the bladerunner Gaff was in the room and knew Deckard was going on the run with a replicant. It's a nod that Gaff could have killed Rachel, but he let her live, because who knows how much time they will have together anyway?

[ynwtf]

It means the movie is based in the same universe as Ridley Scott's Legend?


It all started because Jack tilted the entire universe, thinking with his Johnson. Had he not led Lili to the unicorns, then Deckard (and really, this entire alternate reality) never would have existed.

Gaff knew this and broke the fourth wall suggesting to the audience that Tom Cruise should die. With the aid of Doc Brown's invention that is actually real and guarded under Space Mountain, Walt Disney World's Epcot Center, Florida, he is telling us to return and "Save the unicorn, save the world."

[Saunch]

What’s the word on the Alien/Blade Runner/Predator/Prometheus cinematic universe?

[ynwtf]

What’s the word on the Alien/Blade Runner/Predator/Prometheus cinematic universe?


Is there really such a thing!!!??? Cuz that would really make my day! :D


Scratch that! Totally misread that as there BEING a word for that universe.

[The Rodent]

What’s the word on the Alien/Blade Runner/Predator/Prometheus cinematic universe?



Alien, Aliens, Alien 3, Prometheus, Coventant
Predator, Predator 2, Predators




Alien Resurrection, AvP, AvP 2 and The Predator just sort of exist.

[Saunch]

Is there really such a thing!!!??? Cuz that would really make my day! :D

Technically.

[ynwtf]

Is there really such a thing!!!??? Cuz that would really make my day! :D

Technically.


I'm an idiot. Totally misread that as there BEING a word for that universe.

*cries and runs away*

[The Rodent]

I am so looking forward to the Blade Runner Weekend next year.
Gonna make it a Discord Voice Chat for sure.

[Saunch]

As Rodent just pointed out, the logic is flimsy at best.

But... if the next Alien movie has David unleashing a Predator/Xenomorph hybrid on Earth (specifically Los Angeles) and it’s up to Deckard, Ripley’s clone and a cryogenically preserved Dutch to stop them... well, I’d be there for it.

[rambond]

It'll take a minute or two, but...


It resembles the fact that Deckard's memories are known to other people, which means Deckard might be a Replicant.
thanks rodent

[rambond]

As Rodent just pointed out, the logic is flimsy at best.

But... if the next Alien movie has David unleashing a Predator/Xenomorph hybrid on Earth (specifically Los Angeles) and it’s up to Deckard, Ripley’s clone and a cryogenically preserved Dutch to stop them... well, I’d be there for it.

this was my question when i saw the origami in The predator, does it have any relation to the other universe of blade runner

[ironpony]

I've read this unicorn plot turn to Blade Runner many times, but I don't get why Decard would be a replicant just because he had a dream about a unicorn. Why? Why does a person dreaming if a unicorn, mean they are a replicant?

Also if he is a replicant than why is the law okay with that since replicants are illegal? Why would they allow him to be the exception to the rule?

[Saunch]

Again, Deckard dreams about a unicorn and then Gaff leaves the origami unicorn for Deckard to see, indicating that his dreams and memories are transplants like Rachel’s. Something that can be looked up. Eldon Tyrell has created a new kind of replicant, a kind that is nigh indistinguishable from humans, even to themselves.

[ironpony]

But isn't this quite a bit of a reach to jump to? If I dreamed of a unicorn, and then someone else left a paper one at my place, I would assume I was being stocked by some weirdo who knows what I am dreaming.

I would not assume it means that my memories are implants. Why would Decard's mind jump to the this conclusion, instead of the other one?

[Saunch]

Gaff is telling Deckard that his dreams and memories are transplants. Gaff, with the origami unicorn, is telling Deckard “hey, that dream you had? It wasn’t always yours. I’m not stalking you, I’m looking after you.”

Gaff’s final line, “it’s too bad she won’t live, but then again who does?”, is something of a warning to Deckard, so as to say “I figured out you’re a replicant, someone not so sympathetic will too, soon. So get out of the city.”

[Citizen Rules]

I've read this unicorn plot turn to Blade Runner many times, but I don't get why Decard would be a replicant just because he had a dream about a unicorn. Why? Why does a person dreaming if a unicorn, mean they are a replicant?

Also if he is a replicant than why is the law okay with that since replicants are illegal? Why would they allow him to be the exception to the rule? I know you probably want a definitive answer to your question....but movies seldom work that way because movies are art and art is interpreted by the individual.

So my answer to you is: what ever you think is true about Deckard, then that is your truth.

Personally my truth is Deckard was a human in the original movie. It makes sense he was a human from the 'rules' of the movie as laid out in the beginning crawl, that is replicants are dangerous thereforth illegal on Earth under penalty of death.

So why then would the police force leave an unattended replicant Deckard to quit the police force and do as he pleases? Even Tyrrell tells Deckard that if Rachel leaves the Tyrell Building she would be killed on sight. So why would a replicate like Deckard be left to his own devices? That's an oxymoron with in the film. Also what sense does it make to send an obsolete replicant Deckard who gets his ass kicked by every one of the replicants he meets? It doesn't make sense unless Deckard is a human.

The orgami unicorn left by Gaff, is Gaff's way of saying 'I was here in your apartment and I know you're going to flee the city with Rachel'. That's why when Deckard picks up the origami unicorn he nods with an acknowledgement that Gaff had been there. Had he been a replicant his reaction would have been concern that Gaff was on his trail.

[rambond]

I know you probably want a definitive answer to your question....but movies seldom work that way because movies are art and art is interpreted by the individual.

So my answer to you is: what ever you think is true about Deckard, then that is your truth.

Personally my truth is Deckard was a human in the original movie. It makes sense he was a human from the 'rules' of the movie as laid out in the beginning crawl, that is replicants are dangerous thereforth illegal on Earth under penalty of death.

So why then would the police force leave an unattended replicant Deckard to quit the police force and do as he pleases? Even Tyrrell tells Deckard that if Rachel leaves the Tyrell Building she would be killed on sight. So why would a replicate like Deckard be left to his own devices? That's an oxymoron with in the film. Also what sense does it make to send an obsolete replicant Deckard who gets his ass kicked by every one of the replicants he meets? It doesn't make sense unless Deckard is a human.

The orgami unicorn left by Gaff, is Gaff's way of saying 'I was here in your apartment and I know you're going to flee the city with Rachel'. That's why when Deckard picks up the origami unicorn he nods with an acknowledgement that Gaff had been there. Had he been a replicant his reaction would have been concern that Gaff was on his trail.
So you mean the origami left in decard s room was just for him to tell decard yeah i know what ur gonna do and where ur gonna go isn t it

[Sigerson Holmes]

Deckard being a replicant is so dumb.

[ironpony]

Well it's just that if Gaff wanted to warn Decard it doesn't seem likely that he would warn him with a metaphor instead of actually verbally telling him directly?

[Iroquois]

Where's the fun in that?

[ironpony]

Well I know there is no fun it it, but it just doesn't seem natural as people do not warn other people with metaphors, that's all :).

But if it was a warning then it was and that's fine, I just didn't get that Guff was emplying that Decard was a replicant. But why is it that Decard is allowed to be a replicant and still allowed to live and no other ones are, and why is he a legal accept to the rule?

[Golgot]

Found a nice little compilation of interviews, concept art & behind-the-scenes footage regarding BR's design elements. Some cool stuff about objects being layered with different historical uses & adaptations, and them making so much set material barely half of it made it into the final cut. And conversely there are some fun bits on how their limited backlot sizes forced them to convey scale through close shots.

Start from about 4m33s (https://bit.ly/2O88CXI)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUkGo3hymPg&t=4m33s

[ironpony]

Am I the only one who thinks that making Decard a replicant was a bad idea? I feel that the human learning that replicants have souls too is more powerful. That's like changing the ending to a movie like In The Heat of the Night, and have the white sheriff, find out he's actuall black in the end. It looses the effect, if that makes sense?

[Citizen Rules]

Am I the only one who thinks that making Decard a replicant was a bad idea? I feel that the human learning that replicants have souls too is more powerful. That's like changing the ending to a movie like In The Heat of the Night, and have the white sheriff, find out he's actuall black in the end. It looses the effect, if that makes sense?Deckard isn't a replicant. He never was. That was fan fiction, that caught hold until almost everybody believed it. Then finally Ridley Scott recut his film to make Deckard appear less human and more like a replicant. Yes it was a stupid idea.

The story works much better with Deckard as a burnt out, jaded ex detective (human) who is taught the value of life by the very replicants that he hunts down and kills. That's poignant and irony.

[Guaporense]

My interpretatoom of the movie is ambiguous: Decard is and isn't a replicant at the same time.

[MoreOrLess]

But isn't this quite a bit of a reach to jump to? If I dreamed of a unicorn, and then someone else left a paper one at my place, I would assume I was being stocked by some weirdo who knows what I am dreaming.

I would not assume it means that my memories are implants. Why would Decard's mind jump to the this conclusion, instead of the other one?

Its not the unicorn dream that singles Deckard out as a replicant its the fact that Gaff's knows about his presumably secret dream, something he could only do if that dream had been implanted.

I would say the stories are not THAT different whether Deckard is a human or a replicant. The human Deckard would still be learning that the replicants lives have value but by having the protagonist as a replicant it throws that back at the audience. I do think it was always Scott's intension though, the link between Deckard's obsession with old photos and music and Leon for example or Gaff's character generally having the sense of a hidden agenda.

Really I think the intension of the film as a whole is that the replicants are a parallel for post religious humans. There limited lifespans play up human mortality and they have to come to terms with there being created for no higher purpose, Batty especially gets plays up as a kind of Nietzschean ubermensch.

[ironpony]

Deckard isn't a replicant. He never was. That was fan fiction, that caught hold until almost everybody believed it. Then finally Ridley Scott recut his film to make Deckard appear less human and more like a replicant. Yes it was a stupid idea.

The story works much better with Deckard as a burnt out, jaded ex detective (human) who is taught the value of life by the very replicants that he hunts down and kills. That's poignant and irony.

But in the original theatrical cut though, Gaff leaves the unicorn for Deckard to find as well. Why would he do this if he was not trying to tell him he was a replicant?

[MoreOrLess]

But in the original theatrical cut though, Gaff leaves the unicorn for Deckard to find as well. Why would he do this if he was not trying to tell him he was a replicant?

In the original cut it being a unicorn doesn't have the same specific meaning but still it serves a purpose. Basically letting us know(although the clunky voiceover makes sure we don't miss it) that Gaff was at Deckard's apartment but let Rachael live.

[rambond]

My interpretatoom of the movie is ambiguous: Decard is and isn't a replicant at the same time.
i m gonna have to agree with you, that s what i find aswell

[Citizen Rules]

That's why the look on Deckard's face as he picks up the unicorn and realizes that Gaff had already been in his apartment, is a smirk...That smirk indicates what Deckard is thinking.

[John McClane]

I always thought he is smirking because he knows that not every replicant has an early termination date, so whilst Gaff thinks he will die in a few years Deckard is all like "old age here I come, baby!"

[ironpony]

That's why the look on Deckard's face as he picks up the unicorn and realizes that Gaff had already been in his apartment, is a smirk...That smirk indicates what Deckard is thinking.

Well what was Deckard thinking then? He gives this smirk in the original theatrical cut as well, before Ridley Scott decided he was a replicant. So what was he smirking at originally?

[ynwtf]

He was thinking about noodles, bringing the film full circle to ordering them earlier on the street. It's a symbolic nod that his partner was there and could have totally but didn't, so Deckard will be on the run---on the road---where he first bought noodles. See, noodles represent the string theory. By hungering for noodles, Deckard is in essence both human and an evolved representation of humanity as a replicant. The stringy noodle binds them together forever. Eating noodles is him manifesting his free will reserved for humanity; however, eating them and after digesting them means he really doesn't give a ****. Though he literally will by eating them. Which was kinda the point of the paper unicorn. Choice. To poop or not to poop. As a replicant he doesn't need to. But to do so is human. So he eats the noodles. He wants noodles. He wants to be human. To poop.

[ironpony]

Okay so if a lot of fans agree that Ridley deciding to make Deckard a replicant after the theatrical release was a bad idea, than why are the director's cut and final cut more popular then?

[Iroquois]

Because there's still a lot more to dislike about the theatrical cut and how studio interference compromised it by giving it a "happy" ending where Deckard and Rachael simply drive out of the polluted city into the clean countryside and there's some tacked-on voice-over about how Rachael is a special prototype replicant that is capable of living much longer than just four years (to say nothing of how the whole film was given redundant narration that was badly written and delivered, arguably because the creators wanted it to be too bad to be usable).

[ironpony]

Yeah that's true, good points. I read that for the theatrical ending, that they used unused footage from The Shining, of the mountains. However, Blade Runner was shot in 2.39:1, where as The Shining was shot in 1.33:1, if I am correct. So how is it that they were able to use the footage therefore, unless they stretched it out to 2.39?

[Iroquois]

Looks like they just letterboxed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIDWGLOSVN4

[Citizen Rules]

Well what was Deckard thinking then? He gives this smirk in the original theatrical cut as well, before Ridley Scott decided he was a replicant. So what was he smirking at originally?What would make you smirk? And what wouldn't you smirk at? Think about that and it will help you to understand why Deckard was smirking.

[ironpony]

Looks like they just letterboxed it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIDWGLOSVN4

But what I mean is, is that The Shining was shot in 4:3 though. You can't just letter box 4:3. So how did they do it, did they zoom into the 4:3 footage?

[ironpony]

After watching it again I have a question about part of the plot out of curiosity:

When Decard finds the stripper replicant, why doesn't he just blow her away immediately at the strip club? Or even more logical, why doesn't he just not make contact with her at all, and just survey her, so she will lead him to the other rebels during their next meet up?

Another thing is, when Decard's boss tells him there is one more to go, he corrects his boss and says there is 3 more to go. Why does Decard correct him? Decard hates his job and didn't even want it, so when your boss says one more to go, why would he correct him thereby asking for more work, when he hates the job?

[rambond]

After watching it again I have a question about part of the plot out of curiosity:

When Decard finds the stripper replicant, why doesn't he just blow her away immediately at the strip club? Or even more logical, why doesn't he just not make contact with her at all, and just survey her, so she will lead him to the other rebels during their next meet up?

Another thing is, when Decard's boss tells him there is one more to go, he corrects his boss and says there is 3 more to go. Why does Decard correct him? Decard hates his job and didn't even want it, so when your boss says one more to go, why would he correct him thereby asking for more work, when he hates the job?

I need to rewatch to answer u..it s been a while

[Austruck]

70797

[John W Constantine]

I think I read somewhere that they dubbed Harrison Ford's voice in one of the original cuts of this. I'm curious if some of you could verify how big of a star was Ford at the time BR was released in '82. This is post Star Wars (2) and Raiders so I'm wondering if Scott didn't think he was an established enough star or just crazy

[Holden Pike]

I think I read somewhere that they dubbed Harrison Ford's voice in one of the original cuts of this. I'm curious if some of you could verify how big of a star was Ford at the time BR was released in '82. This is post Star Wars (2) and Raiders so I'm wondering if Scott didn't think he was an established enough star or just crazy
I am not sure what you are asking here? Harrison Ford's voice was not dubbed. He recorded voice over narration for the original release but his voice was not dubbed over by another actor.

[John W Constantine]

I am not sure what you are asking here? Harrison Ford's voice was not dubbed. He recorded voice over narration for the original release but his voice was not dubbed over by another actor.

1. So there was never a version of BR with Harrison Ford's voice dubbed by another actor when it was first released in 82?
2. I wasn't born yet, and was he considered a huge movie star post Star Wars/Indiana Jones, pre internet era.

[The Rodent]

No... the "voice over dub" is Harrison Ford giving a voice over as the end of the movie plays out.
BR has a few versions, can't remember which version it was where he does it.
It's basically him and Rachel driving out of the city into the country, and Ford's voice plays over the footage.

Ford was well known already though due to Star Wars but Indiana Jones had yet to be released... and he wasn't quite yet Hollywood royalty... and if I remember rightly, Scott cast him on Spielberg's praise for his acting skills.
Scott was looking at huge name actors like Robert Mitchum, Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson, Paul Newman, Clint Eastwood, Al Pacino... and apparently even considered Schwarzenegger at one point.
Schwarzenegger barely spoke English though at the time.

[John W Constantine]

No... the "voice over dub" is Harrison Ford giving a voice over as the end of the movie plays out.
BR has a few versions, can't remember which version it was where he does it.
It's basically him and Rachel driving out of the city into the country, and Ford's voice plays over the footage.

Ford was well known already though due to Star Wars but Indiana Jones had yet to be released... and he wasn't quite yet Hollywood royalty... and if I remember rightly, Scott cast him on Spielberg's praise for his acting skills.
Scott was looking at huge name actors like Robert Mitchum, Dustin Hoffman, Jack Nicholson, Paul Newman, Clint Eastwood, Al Pacino... and apparently even considered Schwarzenegger at one point.
Schwarzenegger barely spoke English though at the time.

Ah, okay, now I understand. I'm almost positive I heard that somewhere before, It just seemed baffling to not trust a well known/capable actor because his voice/accent wasn't something the director was comfortable with. Maybe there's a universe where Arnold got that part. :D

[Corax]

After watching it again I have a question about part of the plot out of curiosity:

When Decard finds the stripper replicant, why doesn't he just blow her away immediately at the strip club? Or even more logical, why doesn't he just not make contact with her at all, and just survey her, so she will lead him to the other rebels during their next meet up?



That's a good question. My only apologetic guess would be that the Replicants are such a threat that he has to retire them as soon as he positively ID's them (they're too dangerous to let run around). On the other hand, he must have a positive ID, to be absolutely sure that he does not kill a human. Thus, he has to get close and really confirm (e.g., put the "machine" on the suspect), but then immediately liquidate. But you're right, it doesn't make sense. Deckard should have recognized her, and then backed off, tailing her when she went home.



Here is another question. Why didn't Deckard go to Leon's last known address before going to the Tyrell Pyramid? Deckard has video images of what the Replicants look like. He doesn't need to know how they score on the VK test, or listen to Tyrell prattle on about memories, because he has very clear image of their faces. If you see this guy with this face, you shoot this guy in the face. This isn't complicated. Seeing as how Deckard has permission to recklessly shoot at people in crowded areas, this seems to be a simple task. Why even use special detectives? Just get a bunch of cops and give them the picture and sweep the likely haunts (you know, like the last known address)?

[The Rodent]

I think with Zhora, Deckard was able to track her possible location through the snake scale and that photograph... but he's basically still following promising leads rather than absolute facts.

Deckard is basically doing recon on Zhora because the photofit he had wasn't great, but his cover is blown and she turned violent.
As it happened, the fact his cover was blown and she turned violent is also the very reason he was able to confirm she is the one he is after.
---
Remember the photo of Zhora... she was wearing a headpiece, meaning he doesn't know exactly what she looks like.
When he goes to the club, he talks to Zhora, checking her out to see if she is the one he's after... she gets suspicious though and attacks him and then flees.
She also only flees because people walked into the room when she had Deckard dead to rights. He only survived the attack by sheer luck.
It's only now, when he's absolutely sure that she's the Replicant he's after, that he actually shoots her.

The problem with hunting a rogue malfunctioning Replicant... that doesn't want to be found... is that if you go in guns drawn, they'll immediately attack and probably kill you.
The other problem, going in guns drawn and opening fire... you could well kill an innocent. Or worse, a real person.
The example of this is Pris and Leon. The moment they see Deckard, knowing he's there to hunt and kill them... what do they do? They attack. Immediately. Without question they simply try to kill him on site.
If Zhora knew Deckard was a Blade Runner, she would probably attack him straight away... but he goes in as a Union Officer (or whatever) and she's cordial with him. But, once his cover is blown... she goes into kill mode.

[Corax]

This channel deserves more views...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNPSqln6gEA