• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Just saw Blade Runner for the first time (Final Cut)

Replicants aren’t being hunted because they are evil; they were being hunted because they went rogue and tried to blend into the human population.

They were essentially being hunted because they were intended to be lifelike automatons and instead developed a sense of free will, which was entirely unacceptable to their slavers.

But that’s just the surface narrative.

Mine the film and you discover a myriad of deeper philosophical questions and issues, including existentialism, the inevitable progression of life into death, what it means to be human, and how much responsibility and control we as a species should have over our sentient creations.

Then you have the relationship between Deckard – who may or may not be a Replicant – and a woman who most assuredly is. That relationship alone is a soft but poignant deliberation on love, attraction, and the notion that we are all, ultimately, just a collection of impulses, responses and electrical stimulations.

Not to mention the larger ambiguity that Deckard’s unknown origins brings to the table, which is a broader suggestion that ANYONE could be a Replicant and not realize it, again shaking if not outright obliterating the presumptions of what actually makes up human.

That isn’t to say T2 doesn’t possess some interesting philosophical underpinnings but those are mostly placed in between action sequences. By contrast, Blade Runner’s deeper themes are the crux of the narrative and are only occasionally interrupted by small moments of action.

Also, I would be shocked if Blade Runner didn't inspire Cameron on at least some level when making both Terminator films.

You bring up some good points about the content, but much of that is severely understated within the film (I don't think I generally need to be beaten over the head with themes, maybe I do) that I think it's more fair to say that the film perhaps lightly touches those ideas or introduces them without really examining them...regardless of the depth of exploration however, I think those all pretty much surround the topic of, "what does it mean to be human?" as we already brought up. Perhaps it's one of those "if you see it at a certain time in your life, it will resonate" type of movies. I'd already seen 2001, Terminator, the Matrix, District 9, and countless other movies about humanity, identity, mortality, etc. before watching Blade Runner. I have no doubt it influenced many, if not most, of my favorite films...I just don't think it holds up well at all unfortunately.

Honestly I think it sucks that I don't like it much, as I said, I really wanted to. I think maybe I just put it off too long and now I just don't appreciate what it's trying to do.
 

vulva

Member
You mean the movie that's at 81% on RottenTomatoes, ended up on multiple critics' top ten lists for 2013 and was nominated for a number of awards?

That Prisoners?

Yeah, it was pretty bad. Terribly hamfisted, zero subtlety and having Gyllenhaal blinking like an asshole as much as he was ended up being equal parts obnoxious and irritating.

What does Rotten Tomatoes and reviewers' opinions have to do with me thinking it sucked, though? Do you like everything people tell you to like?
 
Ridley Scott doesn't care about anything anymore lol. He's gone mad with age.

I don't think it's even so much age, or inebriation. He's gone on these sorts of creative tears as a form of escape before, when his brother Frank died. And he's been on this one since Tony died.

I think he's basically just running as fast as he can until he drops because if he stops he's gotta sit with a bunch of shit he just does not want to sit with.

So yeah, there's stuff he doesn't give a shit about because it gets in the way of going as full-speed ahead as he needs in order to continue not looking at all the shit he doesn't want to look at.

I think.

it kinda bears out in the stuff he's making, at least the more personal stuff. The similarities in themes and such.

I think he's basically working his shit out by working himself to literal death.

(and drinking as much wine as he can while he can)
 

GermanZepp

Member
Congrats on staying awake.


1p06irK.gif
 

Trago

Member
I don't think it's even so much age, or inebriation. He's gone on these sorts of creative tears as a form of escape before, when his brother Frank died. And he's been on this one since Tony died.

I think he's basically just running as fast as he can until he drops because if he stops he's gotta sit with a bunch of shit he just does not want to sit with.

So yeah, there's stuff he doesn't give a shit about because it gets in the way of going as full-speed ahead as he needs in order to continue not looking at all the shit he doesn't want to look at.

I think.

it kinda bears out in the stuff he's making, at least the more personal stuff. The similarities in themes and such.

I think he's basically working his shit out by working himself to literal death.

(and drinking as much wine as he can while he can)

It certainly feels like that when you watch and read his recent interviews. Guy's a loose canon.
 

Icolin

Banned
Blade Runner 2049 will end with a closeup of Deckard's orange eyes looking at an origami unicorn. He will close his eyes, and because he suffered a severe injury earlier, we the audience assume he has died.

Pay me.
 

Iceman

Member
Yeah, it was pretty bad. Terribly hamfisted, zero subtlety and having Gyllenhaal blinking like an asshole as much as he was ended up being equal parts obnoxious and irritating.

Hamfisted = awkward, clumsy.

Yet, you say, Prisoners lacks subtlety, suggesting that its themes are obvious; suffering from an on-the-nose presentation.

Is that what you really think about a movie showing two different mens' approaches to finding a missing girl -- on a detective and the other the girl's father -- the compromises to one's philosophies that one of them chooses to make in order to find her (while the other is trapped within the system/handcuffed), and the consequences of those choices (and limitations -- in the case of Gyllenhaal's character) on their psyches? A movie that half the audience will think lauds the use of torture while the other half will think clearly shows that torture, no matter what the circumstance or stakes, is ultimately ruinous for everyone involved, even for the ones perpetuating it as well as those permitting it?

You can not enjoy a movie -- and I can see why something with the aesthetics of The Killing, the violence and imagery of Seven, and an idiosyncratic performance by a lead could turn people off -- but Prisoners was undeniably entertaining (i.e. never boring) and a well-crafted thematic vehicle.

I will say that Villeneuve loves to keep us at a frustrating distance from the underlying mystery, and this movie, more so than even Enemy, made me feel like I was in the dark far longer than I'm accustomed to. More popular movies tend to make the objectives and stakes MORE clear so that the audience can at least feel like they can be a half-step ahead, and anticipate certain actions (secretly hoping that our expectations are subverted). In this movie, like in Zodiac for example, we're put squarely in the points-of-view of protagonists with cripplingly limited vision and access to truth, and we have to trust the director to lead us through the paths that make the most sense.. so I can see that if the character decisions and behaviors don't at least partially reflect your own process that it can be infuriating -- taking you out of the movie and criticizing the characters for acting illogically.

I won't say that Prisoners is my favorite of Villeneuve's works -- its not as soul-crushing as Arrival, blood-pumping as Sicario, or mind-bending as Enemy -- but I can respect it.
 
I don't think it's even so much age, or inebriation. He's gone on these sorts of creative tears as a form of escape before, when his brother Frank died. And he's been on this one since Tony died.

I think he's basically just running as fast as he can until he drops because if he stops he's gotta sit with a bunch of shit he just does not want to sit with.

So yeah, there's stuff he doesn't give a shit about because it gets in the way of going as full-speed ahead as he needs in order to continue not looking at all the shit he doesn't want to look at.

I think.

it kinda bears out in the stuff he's making, at least the more personal stuff. The similarities in themes and such.

I think he's basically working his shit out by working himself to literal death.

(and drinking as much wine as he can while he can)

The guy has 3 or 4 kids all in the same industry and has a commercial production empire to run. I don't think he so much has issues as he does just want to cut the crap and make movies. I've seen an interview with him before Kingdom of Heaven where he said he looked backed on his film career and he had made no where near as many movies as he wanted to so he kicked his own ass. Most people don't realize that he started making features at 41 or something which is a good 18 years later than directors now do.

In regards to his inebriation or craziness he just finished The Martian, what 2 years ago? Which was a huge success critically and box office wise. Why is his ability being judged on the back of Covenant?
 

Markoman

Member
You people are making me crazy. I always liked Bladerunner mostly for it's ending - the idea of synthetic humans being "more human than human". I especially remember one scene with Hannah's character which underlined this idea. Deckard being a replicant is like Jesus not getting crucified. Then again, this movie wasn't about Deckard anyways, so who cares.
 

SomTervo

Member
The heck are we talking about Prisoners

I showed my wife Blade Runner for the first time last week, and she really didn't like it at all. Thought it was too slow, and she hated Deckard. I'm looking forward to the sequel because Denis Villeneuve has yet to disappoint me (though I didn't think Arrival was all that great).

And when I showed my wife this scene, she agreed with Ford that light just happened to shine in his eyes at the wrong moment and that he's not a replicant.

5894443.jpg

The first half is incredibly slow.

But the back half picks up so much.
 
Well, OP asked what we think about the sequel and very few guys/gals have answered, so...

- When I first heard about Ridley doing an new Blade Runner movie I was like: This can't be happening, the same guy who is butchering the Alien franchise now wants to destroy the legacy of -for me- the best movie ever?!!!!!!!!!!

- Then I realized Villeneuve was going to direct it and that got me intrigued about the project, cause he has been awesome for so long.

- Then Arrival happened which was a disappointing effort, and my concerns came back.

- Then I read somewhere Ridley was still very in control of what was happening with this new movie, so my expectations decreased even more.

- Today, after all the trailers, I'd say my expectations are almost equal to zero. I mean... I don't think it will be trash, but in the best scenario, it will end being just ok.

Having said that, I really REALLY want to be proven wrong.
 
I really need to see Blade Runner but the stupid cut debate cripples me. I want to see the best one but nobody agrees.

Honestly just watch any one. The tone and setting are consistent throughout and if you enjoy the movie on your first watch through then you can watch every single cut and decide which is your favorite. I'd maybe avoid Director's Cut for the shoddy editions and the US Theatrical cut for the removed violence but even both of those are still enjoyable films. No one cut is going to blow your mind.

If you happen to have a 4k Blu ray player and can get the 4k disc then watch that but only because it's the best the movie has ever looked and a great show your setup off type film.
 
I mean, people who have watched it like 6 or 7 times can't decide which one is "the best one" so not watching any of them because there's no definitive "best" to watch doesn't make any sense to me.

Just pick one.

You're gonna have to rewatch it anyway, so just... grab a different cut then.
 

Jetman

Member
lololol

looks like you're going to be out of some money

Yep. Ridley already confirmed the premise of this new movie is: Deckard is indeed a replicant.

Haha, Nope - don't believe it.
Unless he really is senile and crazy - why would he come out, say this, and spoil the movie? And if he is, and did say that then that confirms this movie will be straight trash for those unfortunate reasons.
 
Um...no. Regarding his long argument with Harrison Ford over the issue,
Ridley explicitly said a few days ago that the new movie's story is based around the idea that Deckard is a replicant.

Yeah, but the real question is whether
Batty shot first.
 
Haha, Nope - don't believe it.
Unless he really is senile and crazy - why would he come out, say this, and spoil the movie? And if he is, and did say that then that confirms this movie will be straight trash for those unfortunate reasons.

There’s a longstanding disagreement about whether Deckard is a replicant between Ridley, who says he is, and Harrison, who has maintained that he isn’t.

VILLENEUVE Harrison and Ridley are still arguing about this. I witnessed some discussion at dinner we had in Budapest, and it was fantastic. The idea that you’re unsure if you were designed or you are a real subject, a real human being — that tension is interesting. I’m not interested in the answer. I like the fact that the movies are playing on that ambiguity instead of taking one side or the other.

FORD It comes up somewhere around the end of the second drink. It always comes up somehow. When we were making the first film, the conversation really was only for Ridley and myself. Somehow it got into the general conversation, because people were curious about that, and I think that’s a good thing. The story, I think your options ... are somewhat preserved, for the audience.

SCOTT Deckard is a [expletive] replicant. Harrison can’t disagree now, because the whole premise of this new plot is based on the fact that he’s a replicant. I’m more amused by this than anything.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/08/...rison-ford-ridley-scott-denis-villeneuve.html

Sorry, mate.
 
And when I showed my wife this scene, she agreed with Ford that light just happened to shine in his eyes at the wrong moment and that he's not a replicant.

5894443.jpg

If androids/replicants were so easy to recognise by shining a light into their eyes, this makes a nonsense of the Voight-Kampff test.

In Dick's novel the androids are naive and childlike, but lacking in empathy, like young children. A principal theme is the question of what makes you human. Dick himself was involved in the creative process and was reportedly pleased with an early version of the film shortly before his death. Novelists are used to living with ambiguity, but I can certainly recognise that Scott and his original leading actor, used to the endless spotlight accorded them, may have made concrete that which a novelist might well prefer to leave for interpretation.

There are umpteen copies of Blade Runner, I've even got a boxed set that came with some of the main ones, and a flying car into the bargain. Watch whatever you like. Make up your own mind.

Watch the sequel if you feel like it. It won't make the original great film and its glorious soundtrack go away.
 
Which version of this is the best to watch?

They're all essentially the same film. You need to be very particular to notice much of a difference. On reflection I do agree with most fans that the "hard-boiled detective" narration from Deckard in the original 1982 releases adds nothing of value. The different versions all have the same brilliant soundtrack by Vangelis and a career-defining performance from Rutger Hauer as Roy Batty.
 
Top Bottom