I totally understand the intent, just as it wasn't Scott's intent to slight minorities in Exodus. But the end result is all the same and it sucks all the same as it propagates a bad message.
-
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.
LTTP: Blade Runner aka the Godfather of cyberpunk
- Thread starter More_Badass
- Start date
I totally understand the intent, just as it wasn't Scott's intent to slight minorities in Exodus. But the end result is all the same and it sucks all the same as it propagates a bad message.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
The movie and the book have nothing to do with each other really. People have to stop referring to the book as a way to explain anything about the movie.
I would a agree with you, but they shouldn't have borrowed so heavily and yet so lightly from the book then. Hard to not compare when all the characters have the same names and there's a lot of plot points taken straight from the book.
There's a difference between having a story that was inspired by something, and having pretty much what The Walking Dead was; a show that zig zagged around the straight story line of the comic intersecting at random points only to go the complete opposite direction.
Assuming you saw the final cut, Deckard had a dream of a unirorn earlier in the film and Gaff just happens to leave behind an origami of a unicorn at his doorstep. Nexus 6 Replicants are said to have implanted memories. You can connect the dots.
Ah damn, so that's where the whole speculation of him being a replicant comes from. Brilliant. I thought it was supposed to tell me the fate of Rachel.
Neverwinter27
Member
Deckard felt like a more realistic/relatable protagonist than most. His "fight" scenes were never really heroic at all, and had a tendency to abuse alcohol and women. But by the end of the film, seeking redemption(maybe?), and freedom from his current life would change him for the better. A more contained story than I expected, versus Minority Report, which still edges out this movie for me though.
kopitarrulez_11
Member
Is their new stuff on it to make it worth the double dip I have the final cut blu ray
Nappuccino
Member
just finished watching it for the 1st time
ehhhh i'd give it a 7/10
For many (myself included) it's a movie that gives back more every time you watch it.
I was gonna make a thread about it because I watched it yesterday but seems like you beat me to it by a day.
It is CRAZY how well the world is designed in Bladerunner. I mean this is one of those movies that has aged so extremely well due to its retro futuristic look. You can tell that the look of the movie is so timeless that despite the fact that the sequel is made 35 years later, and has access to modern technologies; CGI; mobile phones etc, it pretty much looks like the first film with minimum amount of "new" stuffed in. No one is going to say Bladerunner 2049 needed to change things drastically to make it feel modern as the retro futuristic look of the original was a product of the time.
And it's funny because they went retro futuristic with heavy smoke, night and rain because of budget reasons, as it was cheaper to make a movie look good in those conditions and building around existing structure/machinery. Ridley Scott flat out said that had they shot without any of those elements then the movie would've looked like crap. In the end it allowed them to not only keep their budget in check but also give their movie a dense atmosphere and a unique look.
You gotta watch it a few times.
First time you soak in the visuals, 2nd time you soak in the plot, 3rd time you soak in the additional details and so on. I've seen the movie about 5-6 times now and every time I figured out some new detail.
It is CRAZY how well the world is designed in Bladerunner. I mean this is one of those movies that has aged so extremely well due to its retro futuristic look. You can tell that the look of the movie is so timeless that despite the fact that the sequel is made 35 years later, and has access to modern technologies; CGI; mobile phones etc, it pretty much looks like the first film with minimum amount of "new" stuffed in. No one is going to say Bladerunner 2049 needed to change things drastically to make it feel modern as the retro futuristic look of the original was a product of the time.
And it's funny because they went retro futuristic with heavy smoke, night and rain because of budget reasons, as it was cheaper to make a movie look good in those conditions and building around existing structure/machinery. Ridley Scott flat out said that had they shot without any of those elements then the movie would've looked like crap. In the end it allowed them to not only keep their budget in check but also give their movie a dense atmosphere and a unique look.
just finished watching it for the 1st time
ehhhh i'd give it a 7/10
You gotta watch it a few times.
First time you soak in the visuals, 2nd time you soak in the plot, 3rd time you soak in the additional details and so on. I've seen the movie about 5-6 times now and every time I figured out some new detail.
Perhaps but if you watch the making of videos included in the Blu Ray version you'll find out that Sean Young was actually surprised when she found out that she was going to be pushed in the scene as it was unexpected. Also she cried after filming that scene because it was too much, also partly because all this was so new to her.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I was thinking about it, and there is so much that makes little sense with the plot when you think about it. I absolutely don't care, because I still love the movie and like that it doesn't explain things, but a few are:
1- Why the heck do they need to carry out the Voight Kampf test if they got photos of the escapes. You'd think they would already know those replicants are on the run, but we're supposed to assume they only find out after Leon shoots the other runner. But logically, why do a test? Get their ID, compare it to some data base. Wouldn't be surprised 2049 tries to explain this by saying Replicants are copies of real people, so they don't have unique faces.
2- If getting a positive means you can shoot them on sight, you'd think the blade runners would have the right search whoever they think might be one before putting them on the test so they don't get a laser shot to their face.
3- Why Deckard? What's so special about him? At this point they got people running around, they got their pictures, just broadcast some dangerous people are on the run, 5k reward, done. They're not trying to figure out if they are replicants anymore. If Deckard thinks he knows where they are, call the cops? Is the whole Blade Runner operation supposed to be secretive? It's clear cops know about it.
4- Why go see Tyrell? He apparently wants to validate that the Voight Kampf test works on nexus 6 models, but again not only does Deckard never use it on them, they have their IDs, no need for any test. You find them, you shoot them. Did he really think he was going to get to sit down with them and interview them, especially after Leon shot the other blade runner during an interview?
5- Tyrell basically tells Deckard "Hey, Rachel is a replicant indeed.", which was a secret, a new model too, yet when she essentially stops showing up for work, Tyrell reports it to the cops? It specifically says she has to be retired because she ran away, which means she wouldn't have to be if she hadn't. You'd think Tyrell would have just said "Your test doesn't work, she's real. Bye.", and layer up.
1- Why the heck do they need to carry out the Voight Kampf test if they got photos of the escapes. You'd think they would already know those replicants are on the run, but we're supposed to assume they only find out after Leon shoots the other runner. But logically, why do a test? Get their ID, compare it to some data base. Wouldn't be surprised 2049 tries to explain this by saying Replicants are copies of real people, so they don't have unique faces.
2- If getting a positive means you can shoot them on sight, you'd think the blade runners would have the right search whoever they think might be one before putting them on the test so they don't get a laser shot to their face.
3- Why Deckard? What's so special about him? At this point they got people running around, they got their pictures, just broadcast some dangerous people are on the run, 5k reward, done. They're not trying to figure out if they are replicants anymore. If Deckard thinks he knows where they are, call the cops? Is the whole Blade Runner operation supposed to be secretive? It's clear cops know about it.
4- Why go see Tyrell? He apparently wants to validate that the Voight Kampf test works on nexus 6 models, but again not only does Deckard never use it on them, they have their IDs, no need for any test. You find them, you shoot them. Did he really think he was going to get to sit down with them and interview them, especially after Leon shot the other blade runner during an interview?
5- Tyrell basically tells Deckard "Hey, Rachel is a replicant indeed.", which was a secret, a new model too, yet when she essentially stops showing up for work, Tyrell reports it to the cops? It specifically says she has to be retired because she ran away, which means she wouldn't have to be if she hadn't. You'd think Tyrell would have just said "Your test doesn't work, she's real. Bye.", and layer up.