• 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

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

jhmtehgamr20xx

Banned
Currygan said:
lets not get too carried away now
Click to expand...
He's half-right; it is better than Blade Runner. Can't vouch on 2001 tho.

Kill3r7 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's the case b/c Blade Runner and 2001 aren't even "hard" science/cyberpunk unless our definitions of "hard" are different (tho I've not watched 2001). If you mean stylistically most Japanese cyberpunk beats them in that department and I enjoy a lot of those immensely. If just by exploring actual science well I like digging into the quantum science that pops up in Battle Angel Alita and GITS, even when its stuff I've never heard of previously, so I can more than appreciate that as well.

And while I admit Blade Runner explores more interesting themes (as a whole), Alien explores its themes better and in a more "entertaining" way. At the end of the day a movie can be as philosophical as it wants but if it doesn't maintain a threshold of energy (which comes from a variety of sources, such as art design, sound design, score, acting, editing, frame composition, dialog, pacing etc.) it won't explore those ideas as well as it could have.

Blade Runner is more ambitious than Alien but the execution of its ambition is somewhat more flawed, and it's the execution that mostly matters.
 
N

Nappuccino

Member
John Kowalski said:
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.
Click to expand...

The point that the Replicants behave with more empathy and humanity than a human is pretty profound. But that only works in the context of the movie is Deckard is actually human.

The murkyness of "Is he or isn't he" is interesting, but I don't feel like that alone makes the movie's theme worth while--and even still, the Final Cut steals that question too.
 
O

Oveja Negra

Member
Alien is not even Sci-Fi, but a thriller set in space. I don't know why some of you compare it to both Blade Runner and 2001.

Don't get me wrong, Alien is a brilliant film from start to finish, easily among my top 10, but again... the main theme has nothing to do with Sci-Fi.

Nappuccino said:
The point that the Replicants behave with more empathy and humanity than a human is pretty profound. But that only works in the context of the movie is Deckard is actually human.
Click to expand...

I don't see it at all, can you please elaborate on that? :)
 
J

John Kowalski

Banned
Nappuccino said:
The point that the Replicants behave with more empathy and humanity than a human is pretty profound. But that only works in the context of the movie is Deckard is actually human.
Click to expand...

Hmm, i don't know. I think it ought to work nonetheless, because afaik Deckard himself doesn't know whether he is a human or a replicant, putting him in the same state of identity flux as the viewer's.

Oh screw it, i'll just watch it again.
 
N

Nappuccino

Member
Oveja Negra said:
Alien is not even Sci-Fi, but a thriller set in space. I don't know why some of you compare it to both Blade Runner and 2001.

Don't get me wrong, Alien is a brilliant film from start to finish, easily among my top 10, but again... the main theme has nothing to do with Sci-Fi.



I don't see it at all, can you please elaborate on that? :)
Click to expand...

If the movie is trying to make the argument that the Replicants are at least as "human" as human (or more "human," since Deckard acts like a soulless android) we need a human character that embodies what humanity is at that point in time. If they don't, then it is up to the the viewer to construct what this future human behavior should or would be like. Without one directly in the movie, a viewer could bring any number of interpretations/expectations of their own--all of which would have a different thematic implication.

Since the screen writers and Harrison Ford (and the original cuts of the movie) either wanted Deckard to be human, or left him somewhat ambiguous, they wanted a particular thematic statement that is lost with Deckard just flatly being a replicant. Basically, that the replicants behave more like modern, compassionate, emotional humans than Deckard (the future human) speaks a lot for the future's lost humanty. (Hope that makes sense, I just woke up so I'm not sure if my brain's completely firing).
 
F

Fancy Clown

Member
Oveja Negra said:
Alien is not even Sci-Fi, but a thriller set in space. I don't know why some of you compare it to both Blade Runner and 2001.

Don't get me wrong, Alien is a brilliant film from start to finish, easily among my top 10, but again... the main theme has nothing to do with Sci-Fi.
Click to expand...

The characters are forced to confront the fact that they are not alone in the universe, and that there are some very scary things out there that we would be better NOT discovering. Add to that the futuristic but very grounded setting and details, as well as the logic behind the Alien's life cycle, and I absolutely consider that sci-fi.

Just because it's a horror film doesn't mean it's not also sci-fi.
 
N

Nappuccino

Member
Fancy Clown said:
The characters are forced to confront the fact that they are not alone in the universe, and that there are some very scary things out there that we would be better NOT discovering. Add to that the futuristic but very grounded setting and details, as well as the logic behind the Alien's life cycle, and I absolutely consider that sci-fi.

Just because it's a horror film doesn't mean it's not also sci-fi.
Click to expand...

If the movie ended with Ripley encountering the monolith in space and becoming a Star Child, then it would be Sci-fi.
 
O

Oveja Negra

Member
Nappuccino said:
If the movie is trying to make the argument that the Replicants are at least as "human" as human (or more "human," since Deckard acts like a soulless android) we need a human character that embodies what humanity is at that point in time. If they don't, then it is up to the the viewer to construct what this future human behavior should or would be like. Without one directly in the movie, a viewer could bring any number of interpretations/expectations of their own--all of which would have a different thematic implication.
Click to expand...

I think you are trying to go to deep into a subject that doesn't require it at all.

To me, the thing is very simple, as a viewer I already know what a human is, hence... even if at the beginning of the movie a narrator tells me in the future everybody is a replicant, the premise of the movie is still valid. They want us to question what really being a human is, and how we'll treat those ultra advanced machines that are "impossible" to tell apart from real humans.

In that regard, as opposed to you, I don't think Deckard acts like a souless robot at all. On the contrary, you can tell that when he hurts Rachael's feelings; as soon as he see her crying he immediately try to fix his fuck up. The thing is Deckard, even being a replicant that isn't aware of being one, thinks replicants are just machines, so when he retires them, he doesn't see them as sentient beings, so he has no guilt at all, since he is not killing anyone (even Rachael thinks the same when she asks Deckard if he ever retired a human by mistake).

Anyways, I forgot to add in my original post that for the main theme of the movie, it doesn't really matters if Deckard is or not a replicant. It's just to me it's pretty evident he is.

Nappuccino said:
Since the screen writers and Harrison Ford (and the original cuts of the movie) either wanted Deckard to be human, or left him somewhat ambiguous, they wanted a particular thematic statement that is lost with Deckard just flatly being a replicant. Basically, that the replicants behave more like modern, compassionate, emotional humans than Deckard (the future human) speaks a lot for the future's lost humanty. (Hope that makes sense, I just woke up so I'm not sure if my brain's completely firing).
Click to expand...

I have never watched the movie from that perspective. If you do, I can see where you come from, but for me it doesn't make too much sense.

Anyways, thanks for taking the time to answer :)

Fancy Clown said:
The characters are forced to confront the fact that they are not alone in the universe, and that there are some very scary things out there that we would be better NOT discovering. Add to that the futuristic but very grounded setting and details, as well as the logic behind the Alien's life cycle, and I absolutely consider that sci-fi.
Click to expand...

By that logic, Star Wars is also Sci-Fi.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
 
F

Fancy Clown

Member
Oveja Negra said:
By that logic, Star Wars is also Sci-Fi.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.
Click to expand...

But Star Wars has magic and makes no attempt at being grounded. Although I don't mind when people classify it as sci-fi. Alien at least has people trying to be scientific and figure shit out and deals with the cosmos and situations humans could theoretically be in. I also see The Thing as sci-fi, as well as horror.
 
N

Nappuccino

Member
Oveja Negra said:
To me, the thing is very simple, as a viewer I already know what a human is, hence... even if at the beginning of the movie a narrator tells me in the future everybody is a replicant, the premise of the movie is still valid. They want us to question what really being a human is, and how we'll treat those ultra advanced machines that are "impossible" to tell apart from real humans.

anyways, thanks for taking the time to answer :)
Click to expand...

A more concise response is that I feel that any work can only stand on what's contained within that work. If there is no human in the work, then we cannot get a grasp for what the film is trying to say about the replicants in the context of itself.

Sure, we all know what humans are like, today, but we all also have different interpretations of what humans are. Some people are optimistic, some are pessimistic, some fit into a more grey area. What facets of humanity make people human? Everyone has a different perspective on these matters, so I don't think it's wise to wholly leave that up to the viewer. At least, not if you're making a movie where the question of "what makes us human" is put to the forefront.

But if you're watching it for a different reason, I can see why my concerns don't really matter much. I personally find it much more interesting when we doubt Deckard's humanity, not know full well he never was human.
 
U

Unicorn

Member
Juan29.zapata said:
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?
Click to expand...

Each thing origami alludes to a symbol - in this case the unicorn is left following a scene with Rachel (that's her, right?) alluding to her as "the last unicorn." Or, even, her, represented as a Unicorn in terms of purity, both sexually and emotionally as she is a replicant that can pass as a real human, even to Deckard
 
F

foxtrot3d

Banned
Unicorn said:
Each thing origami alludes to a symbol - in this case the unicorn is left following a scene with Rachel (that's her, right?) alluding to her as "the last unicorn." Or, even, her, represented as a Unicorn in terms of purity, both sexually and emotionally as she is a replicant that can pass as a real human, even to Deckard
Click to expand...

Well, that's an interesting interpretation, but according to Ridley Scott it's the confirmation that Deckard is a Replicant.

(Speaking about Unicorn dream scene)
Scott: Absolutely. It was cut into the picture, and I think it worked wonderfully. Deckard was sitting, playing the piano rather badly because he was drunk, and there's a moment where he gets absorbed and goes off a little at a tangent and we went into the shot of the unicorn plunging out of the forest. It's not subliminal, but it's a brief shot. Cut back to Deckard and there's absolutely no reaction to that, and he just carries on with the scene. That's where the whole idea of the character of Gaff with his origami figures — the chicken and the little stick-figure man, so the origami figure of the unicorn tells you that Gaff has been there. One of the layers of the film has been talking about private thoughts and memories, so how would Gaff have known that a private thought of Deckard was of a unicorn? That's why Deckard shook his head like that.
Click to expand...

Again, I don't like Scott's insistence on this point and the fact that he wants to make a Blade Runner sequel is even scarier.
 
U

Unicorn

Member
foxtrot3d said:
Well, that's an interesting interpretation, but according to Ridley Scott it's the confirmation that Deckard is a Replicant.

(Speaking about Unicorn dream scene)


Again, I don't like Scott's insistence on this point and the fact that he wants to make a Blade Runner sequel is even scarier.
Click to expand...
I meant more like she was the last Unicorn in the sense that it was debatable of such a replicant could exist that could fool runners. One of a kind mythical replicant.
 
M

MacNille

Banned
It is an amzing film. Roy batty speech at the end is amazing.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die
Click to expand...
¨
RobotRoy.jpg
 
H

Hyun Sai

Member
I just heard Harrison Ford narration in VO, and it's really horrible and off putting. It's one of the few cases where the french version (theatrical release) is by far superior. I can guess it's the same in other non english languages where they put some efforts in it.
 
B

Bishop89

Member
Extremely boring movie imo.

Saw it first time a couple years ago.
Harrison Ford + Noir sci fi, two things I love, what can go wrong I said.

Pacing is just horrible, and a lot of nothingness happens.
 
V

Volotaire

Member
Randam said:
How did you manage seeing it without knowing ford was in it and Scott was directing?
Click to expand...

Crazy I know, but I knew nothing about this film. I have huge gaps in some of my film knowledge, but then I make up with it with recent releases in the last decade.
 
E

EVIL

Member
One little correction, the pyramid is not the city.. the pyramid is the Tyrell Corporation building.

Anyway, love this movie and the special effects hold up very well
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Sorry for the bump but I'm reading "Future Noire: The making of Blade Runner", and there's some interesting parts about earlier revisions of the script.

The first scene of the movie was once Roy and co. pretending to be dead, on an orbital station where replicants are sent to be incinerated. They kill off some of the workers and then look up to the Earth above them.

Deckard arrives to LA by train.

Deckard brings Rachel to the countryside where she witnesses snow falling for her first time, and then shoots/retires her.

The fifth nexus was scrapped very late, they had even cast her (in the movie it says there were six, one was fried at Tyrrel's corp, but it never mentions who the fifth one was).

Another scene was Deckard forcing Gaff to take the Voigt-Kampff test.

One ending was Deckard loading his gun, waiting for an armored police force to break into his apartment after having killed Gaff who had tried to retire Deckard for not having to killed Rachel in a more timely manner (it really says "terminate").

I'm still early in the book, but I recommend it if you like Blade Runner.
 
V

Volotaire

Member
Ether_Snake said:
Sorry for the bump but I'm reading "Future Noire: The making of Blade Runner", and there's some interesting parts about earlier revisions of the script.

The first scene of the movie was once Roy and co. pretending to be dead, on an orbital station where replicants are sent to be incinerated. They kill off some of the workers and then look up to the Earth above them.

Deckard arrives to LA by train.

Deckard brings Rachel to the countryside where she witnesses snow falling for her first time, and then shoots/retires her.

The fifth nexus was scrapped very late, they had even cast her (in the movie it says there were six, one was fried at Tyrrel's corp, but it never mentions who the fifth one was).

Another scene was Deckard forcing Gaff to take the Voigt-Kampff test.

One ending was Deckard loading his gun, waiting for an armored police force to break into his apartment after having killed Gaff who had tried to retire Deckard for not having to killed Rachel in a more timely manner (it really says "terminate").

I'm still early in the book, but I recommend it if you like Blade Runner.
Click to expand...

Thanks will look into this.
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
Another thing that the book got me thinking: Blade Runner could be seen as the third act in a three-act story of which the protagonist is really Batty.

You could imagine two arcs involving the replicant gang being mistreated, Batty helping them out and all deciding to escape to Earth to find a way to extend their lives, but they end up separated (end of 2nd act). Third act is Blade Runner.

In that case the story would follow the usual "quest" trope: hero learns of a great McGuffin (life extension) that he desperately wants or needs to find, and sets out to find it, often with companions:)

edit: Another thing I forget to mention above is LA was originally supposed to be NYC instead. It was changed to LA when they ended up filming there.
 
T

thenexus6

Member
I bought that book but haven't started it yet. Anyway film is my favourite I love it (hence username). I want to get the anniversary blu ray for Christmas.
 
T

televator

Member
It's my GOAT. I have both BD collector sets.

Some people say it's boring, but they should still appreciate that it now influences many modern day sci-fi works... and even finds references in non-sci-fi pieces.

The atmosphere is just so unmatched and the practical effects were superb. When I first saw this movie, I was 22 YO and I could not believe my lying eyes that I was watching something from '82. Each shot so carefully crafted and haunting, I think even Kubrick would admire. It's a film that doesn't just show you images just well enough to convey the immediate message, but it also has a thick subliminal mode of communicating to your subconscious.
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
televator said:
It's my GOAT. I have both BD collector sets.

Some people say it's boring, but they should still appreciate that it now influences many modern day sci-fi works... and even finds references in non-sci-fi pieces.

The atmosphere is just so unmatched and the practical effects were superb. When I first saw this movie, I was 22 YO and I could not believe my lying eyes that I was watching something from '82. Each shot so carefully crafted and haunting, I think even Kubrick would admire. It's a film that doesn't just show you images just well enough to convey the immediate message, but it also has a thick subliminal mode of communicating to your subconscious.
Click to expand...

The end of Blade Runner is footage form the beginning of The Shining, Ridley re-used some of the footage:)
 
E

Ether_Snake

安安安安安安安安安安安安安安安
More from the book, about earlier versions of the script or things not shot or cut:

- Zorah had an elaborate dance scene on a pile of sand with her snake (the snake Zorah has around her was Joanna Cassidy's own snake). Claymation was supposed to be used to make the sand form a human silhouette out of which Zorah would emerge (it would have looked horrible lol), but the scene was cut because it was too expensive, even if Ridley was really pushing to film it.
- Zorah was supposed to survive the chase, but get hit by a bus.
- The infiltration of Tyrell corp was actually written as Sebastian delivering a miniature unicorn to Tyrell in a spinner/flying vehicle, with Batty hidden in, at Tyrell's home, not at the corp. This was changed because of costs.
- Tyrell was a replicant, and after killing him Sebastian takes Batty to the top of the pyramid in a room where the real Tyrell lies frozen. It turns out Tyrell had been frozen some time ago due to a fatal disease, to be unfrozen when a cure would be available. Batty tells Sebastien to unfreeze him, but Sebastian breaks down telling him he actually accidentally killed Tyrell when he froze him (brain damage). Roy gets pissed off realizing he has no chance, and kills Sebastien.
- Another one had Tyrell's brain swapped inside a shark living in tank, an idea that was scrapped but basically re-used (coincidentally or not is unclear) in Johny Mnemonic.
- Ford hated Sean Young, and some say that played out in the "love scene", although Ridley supposedly wanted the scene to play out this way anyway. But the script was written as an actual love scene, not an almost-rape.
- Deckard originally did this job just so he could buy himself a sheep! The whole ecological notion isn't part of the final script, but undertones remain. It was a central part of the original script.

Edit: I have strong suspicions that the sequel might be about how there is a way to extend the life of the Nexus 6. Hampton says himself if there was a sequel he would probably make that part of its story. I wouldn't be surprised if Scott actually tried to retcon why the movie mentions there were 6 replicants but doesn't explain why the one that wasn't fried isn't mentioned ever. Sounds like something Scott would do when you look at how Prometheus turned out.
 
Corpsepyre

Corpsepyre

Banned
A magnificent achievement for cinema, and one that can never be replicated again, even with the thousands of pretenders lining up.
 
S

shaki123

Member
Vaudeville Villain said:
This is easily one if my favorite movies of all time.

A great video about blade runner

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rrjHaDwev5U

This guy goes into great detail about characters, camera shots, plot etc. Highly recommended, major spoilers in the video.
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot for this. Goddamn amazing video. Except for the fact that he says fans are regarding the Director's Cut as the definitive version. That is utter nonsense. The Final Cut is definitive and the way in was intended by Scott.
 
V

Vaudeville Villain

Member
shaki123 said:
Thanks a lot for this. Goddamn amazing video. Except for the fact that he says fans are regarding the Director's Cut as the definitive version. That is utter nonsense. The Final Cut is definitive and the way in was intended by Scott.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree, that always rubbed me the wrong way. However, I still think he makes excellent points.
 
S

shaki123

Member
Vaudeville Villain said:
Yeah, I agree, that always rubbed me the wrong way. However, I still think he makes excellent points.
Click to expand...

He sure does. I, personally, cannot wait for the sequel. I have complete faith in Ridley. I am actually one of the few (on GAF) that really, really liked Prometheus and would rather have the version of the movie that was intended at first (without Lindelof interfering) but the direction and atmosphere was absolutely terrific. The fact that (most certainly) Ford is onboard as well gets me hyped to insanity. Bring back Vangelis as well please. Oh, and Hampton Fancher (original BR scriptwriter) wrote the script for the sequel and is already approved by Scott. It's just a matter of going into production.
 
V

Vaudeville Villain

Member
shaki123 said:
He sure does. I, personally, cannot wait for the sequel. I have complete faith in Ridley. I am actually one of the few (on GAF) that really, really liked Prometheus and would rather have the version of the movie that was intended at first (without Lindelof interfering) but the direction and atmosphere was absolutely terrific. The fact that (most certainly) Ford is onboard as well gets me hyped to insanity. Bring back Vangelis as well please. Oh, and Hampton Fancher (original BR scriptwriter) wrote the script for the sequel and is already approved by Scott. It's just a matter of going into production.
Click to expand...

That is certainly an unpopular opinion. I haven't seen Prometheus, because people tell me to avoid it, my younger brother goes as far as to say it's the worst movie he saw that year. As far as the sequel for BR, whether we want it or not, it's going to happen, so instead of being bitter, I will hope it's good. That being said, I would sill prefer just having the one movie, but oh well.
 
N

Nappuccino

Member
shaki123 said:
Thanks a lot for this. Goddamn amazing video. Except for the fact that he says fans are regarding the Director's Cut as the definitive version. That is utter nonsense. The Final Cut is definitive and the way in was intended by Scott.
Click to expand...

The problem is that it's his cut many years after he would have made the original edits. His perspective changed and his ideas changed. I really think he would have left it more ambigious had he had his final cut when the Director's Cut came out.
 
S

shaki123

Member
Nappuccino said:
The problem is that it's his cut many years after he would have made the original edits. His perspective changed and his ideas changed. I really think he would have left it more ambigious had he had his final cut when the Director's Cut came out.
Click to expand...

Studio interference was the reason for that. Everything is better then what Oliver Stone did to Alexander's 4 cuts.
 
N

Nappuccino

Member
shaki123 said:
Studio interference was the reason for that. Everything is better then what Oliver Stone did to Alexander's 4 cuts.
Click to expand...

if by studio you mean the screen writer, actor, and book they're adapting, then sure.

Studios typically don't want ambiguous because they want the audience to feel content with what they just watched, not scratching their heads. The original studio edited versions made it blatantly obvious that Deckard was a human.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Dune: Part Two - Review Thread
News 6 7 8 9 10
496
25K
Ulysses 31 replied
The Super Mario Bros. Movie - Review Thread
2 3
109
7K
6502 replied
ITT we rank the Star Wars Movies
2
68
4K
VenomousCoffee replied
LTTP: FFXVI was a solid 7/10 *SPOILERS*
2
58
3K
Raven117 replied
Rolling Stone (citing a Warner report) alleges Zack Snyder hired an ad agency to start #ReleaseTheSnyderCut
2
71
4K
DeafTourette replied
Top Bottom