WeAreStarStuff
Member
Just tried watching this for the first time a few weeks ago. I thought it started off strong, but the quality dropped quickly and I didn't even bother to finish. I had such high hopes to.
-
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
- Thread starter Volotaire
- Start date
- Status
One of my favourite films. I really enjoyed listening to this guy's take on it.
Creepy, Obsessive Nerdlove: Blade Runner
Creepy, Obsessive Nerdlove: Blade Runner
Perfect Blue
Banned
Classic. One of my favourite films ever and I try to watch it at least once every year. It's always the film I recommend to my friends first.
jonnyp
Member
I'm making the same gesture as Jackie in your avatar right now.
One of my all-time fav movies.
So is Legend just Deckard's dream?
Now that would be an awesome twist. Young Sean Young > Mia Sara though
bishopcruz
Member
Great film. Director's cut is probably my favorite version, little errors and all. The Final Cut LOOKs amazing though, the cleanup they did was amazing. Problem I had with the Final Cut was that they removed a lot of the ambiguity on whether or not Deckard was a replicant. I think the film works best with that being unclear, with the big takeaway for me being: "does it even matter?"
This! The theme makes no sense if Deckard isn't human. The irony of having a robot value life more than a real human, and a human learning to value his life, is lost.
IISANDERII
Member
Also, was it ever explained or even hinted at why Deckard chose to come out of retirement? I figured he's a machine who's compelled to follow orders.
Fancy Clown
Member
Nerdkiller
Membeur
It was never really explained. Bryant pretty much states that he has no other choice but to take down the Replicants.
SpoonyBard
Banned
It's the best movie I've ever seen. And Decker is not a replicant. The movie raises a question of the possibility of Decker being one, but no, it just wouldn't make sense in larger scale.
Escape Goat
Member
Blade Runner is no 2001.
Fancy Clown
Member
I'd definitely put 2001 and Alien above Blade Runner. But Blade Runner is certainly deserving of its status as a classic.
Fancy Clown
Member
I can certainly watch it a lot more. I don't think I could ever definitively say it's better though, 2001 is a really special film.
StriKeVillain
Banned
Blade Runner blew me away the first time I saw it, and as a result I became more interested in viewing more older/classic films. Definitely a big part of my growing up and teenage years.
For awhile I considered it my favorite film. I'm not sure it has that spot anymore, though I can't really say what replaced it. Anyway, still a great movie after so many viewings.
I was ecstatic when the long awaited DVD/HD release was announced in 2007. Still have that briefcase.
For awhile I considered it my favorite film. I'm not sure it has that spot anymore, though I can't really say what replaced it. Anyway, still a great movie after so many viewings.
I was ecstatic when the long awaited DVD/HD release was announced in 2007. Still have that briefcase.
ChocolatePuddin
Member
Watching the movie right now and stumbled across this thread. I am struggling to sit through it I won't lie. It's very drawn out, and I am struggling to understand it's appeal. Also I think anyone could of played Fords role, he just kind of mumbles through the lines.
MrbTongue is the best of course, now if only he could stick to a consistent schedule.
jhmtehgamr20xx
Banned
Okay, but some of them are pretty extreme.
-Tetsuo: The Iron Man
-964 Pinocchio
-Hellevator: The Bottled Fools
-Paranoia 1.0
-Equilibrium
-Save The Green Planet
-Death Powder
-Akira
-Immortel
-Videodrome
-City of Lost Children (well it has the vibe of one, grim art direction)
That's just of the ones I've seen, I still need to watch some like Rubber's Lover, Nirvana and Requiem of the Black Rainbow (that one's tonight).
And that's not me saying Blade Runner isn't good; it's quite good actually. But it's not at the top of its class IMHO.
This one's pretty good too, just it cuts too close to the Terminator movies. And for all the shit it gets, I enjoy Death Machine quite a lot, in a slightly b-movie kind of way (I don't think it's that bad actually).
Yeah they do; I was just wondering if it would qualify as cyberpunk. It deals with some stuff cyberpunk usually deals with but it's also quite fantasy-based. I don't know if I could classify Dark City as cyberpunk either b/c it's more like a dark modern pulp-noir thing.
Dark City and city of lost children have a similar tone.
Broder Salsa
Banned
The westwood game was better
Stitch
Gold Member
That's a game that really deserves a Remastered Edition.
But no, we get more few months old shooter crap.
brianjones
Member
I'm on the boring side
but it looks fucking awesome
but it looks fucking awesome
The soundtrack & imagery fucking made this movie for me.
Seriously though,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RScZrvTebeA
Seriously though,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RScZrvTebeA
Nappuccino
Member
You two get it (even if you have slightly different conclusions). I mostly like the Final Cut, but I just cannot stand the lack of ambiguity throughout.
D
Deleted member 80556
Unconfirmed Member
There was something I never really understood of the film: The symbolism of the unicorn. In the Final Cut, Deckard has dreams with an unicorn, at the end, he picks up an unicorn. What does it symbolize?
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
Best movie ever
John Kowalski
Banned
I am not very verbose in the metaphors of Blade Runner but i think that's meant to imply that his memories of the unicorn are implanted, and the origami is Gaff's way of showing Deckard that his memories are implanted.
Nappuccino
Member
Some say it indicates that Deckard is a replicant whose dreams were known/implanted.
I like to think it's about freedom / attaining the impossible.
Oveja Negra
Member
I don't think it symbolizes anything.
More than that, a lot of people think it's a hint to realize that Deckard is indeed a replicant.
Deckard dreams about unicorns, Gaff left the unicorn there, which means he knows Deckard's dreams. The only explanation for that is Gaff had "access" to those dreams because they were implanted in the same way Rachael's ones.
Deckard being a replicant doesn't ruin anything in my opinion.
And yeah, Blade Runner is a true masterpiece, influential as hell and without a single doubt, the best Sci-Fi movie ever.
Nappuccino
Member
It ruins the main theme of the film--if How are we to judge the humanity (or lack there of) the replicants, in the context of the film, when our main lead (who is compared and contrasted to them intentionally) is also a replicant? It doesn't lend itself to any discussion.
John Kowalski
Banned
It's a subversion of the viewer's expectations. Viewers will rest their ethical and moral expectations on Deckard's behavior with the initial assumption that he is a human. Introducing elements in the movie that make his humanity less credible both call attention to and exaggerate the notion that replicants are so indistinguishable from humans that their forced termination can be equitably as immoral and as unethical as forced termination of humans.
lets not get too carried away now
Oveja Negra
Member
I see it from a totally different perspective:
The film show us that we'll reach a point where the machines (androids) will be so advanced that you will be unable to tell the difference between them and humans, and that blurry line also applies to how replicants behave toward other ones.
That's for me, one of the aspects of the movie that make it so fantastic, because the replicants not only look like us, they also behave likes us, which I do think make to ask ourselves: How do we define the term "human"?
D
Deleted member 102362
Unconfirmed Member
Are you me? I did the exact same thing.
Thanks for sharing your impressions, OP. And yeah, maybe we do need an OT.
Alien certainly has greater replay value but Blade Runner and 2001 are easily the two best sci-fi films ever. I guess your enjoyment of the latter two is greatly depended on whether or not you enjoy hard science/cyberpunk vs military/alien invasion type sic-fi.
Well, that some includes Ridley Scott. But, like I said I don't care what he thinks, what matters is my interpretation.
Coincidentally I watched it again last night. Gets better every time. Hated it first time. The visuals and soundtrack alone are amazing.
I think it works because at the beginning of the film, the viewer is sure he's a human. The viewer begins to suspect and learn the truth the same time as Deckard. By this time, the viewer sees him as more human than not. By contrast, whilst we feel for the innocent and lovely Rachael, her emotions could be construed as being as faked as her memories, since we don't get inside her head as much.
Perhaps it's the cold, distantly observing Gaff who is the true representative of a compassionate and understanding human that many viewers want Deckard to be.
I think it works because at the beginning of the film, the viewer is sure he's a human. The viewer begins to suspect and learn the truth the same time as Deckard. By this time, the viewer sees him as more human than not. By contrast, whilst we feel for the innocent and lovely Rachael, her emotions could be construed as being as faked as her memories, since we don't get inside her head as much.
Perhaps it's the cold, distantly observing Gaff who is the true representative of a compassionate and understanding human that many viewers want Deckard to be.
Same here, I didn't exactly hate it but I didn't get the hype. Now, it's one of my favs upon rewatching.
I always try to connect those two. Legend was Scott's next film after Blade Runner (3 years apart). Everybody can agree that stylisticly they are the two milestones of Sci Fi and Fantasy. Like they should be part of a greater concept.
But there is nothing.
The visuals and soundtrack are astounding, but the characters and dialogue feel a little flat and dated to me. Still an excellent movie though.
I didn't know that Ridley had confirmed Deckard as a replicant until I read this thread, I thought it was supposed to be left ambiguous. Not sure how I feel about that, though I don't think it changes my interpretation much. I took the ambiguity as saying they are so far down the rabbit hole in the evolution of technology that anyone could be a replicant and you wouldn't know it, and that there's an irrelevance looming beneath all the forefront themes and the man vs machine aspect. Thinking about it that way lends itself to the surreal dreamlike quality of the flim, imo.
I didn't know that Ridley had confirmed Deckard as a replicant until I read this thread, I thought it was supposed to be left ambiguous. Not sure how I feel about that, though I don't think it changes my interpretation much. I took the ambiguity as saying they are so far down the rabbit hole in the evolution of technology that anyone could be a replicant and you wouldn't know it, and that there's an irrelevance looming beneath all the forefront themes and the man vs machine aspect. Thinking about it that way lends itself to the surreal dreamlike quality of the flim, imo.
- Status