Support NeoGAF

[Zeliard]

retard hivemind jizzing

Are you 12 years old?

 

[Ledsen]

Loving Blade Runner = hivemind jizzing?

Okay.

Hivemind really should be a banned meme.

 

[ItAintEasyBeinCheesy]

Blade Runner is the shit. Fuck yall.

 

[aermak]

Blade Runner is the shit. Fuck yall.

Right on!

 

[Solo]

It's one of the most effective mood/atmosphere pieces ever.

 

[NullPointer]

Some movies are out of reach for certain viewers. It is an inherent flaw in the human reproductive system that gets carried over from parent to sibling.

You might try to read the book that the movie is based on, but I doubt it would improve the situation.

Here are some movies that might be more up your alley: shit.

Reposted since it cracks me up every time.

*applause*

 

[Yager]

I think it's success and everything is more related to the time when it came out than the overall quality of the film. I'm not saying it's bad, in fact I really like it, but I'm pretty sure that if it came out nowadays it wouldn't have so much impact.

 

[Dead Man]

Damn, I feel bad for a lot of people.

I think it's success and everything is more related to the time when it came out than the overall quality of the film. I'm not saying it's bad, in fact I really like it, but I'm pretty sure that if it came out nowadays it wouldn't have so much impact.

It had almost no impact when it was released, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner#Reception

The gross for the opening weekend was a disappointing $6.15 million. A significant factor in the film's rather poor box office performance was that it was released around the same time as other science fiction films, including The Thing, Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan, and, most significantly, E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial, which dominated box office revenues that summer.

Film critics were polarized as some felt the story had taken a back seat to special effects and that it was not the action/adventure the studio had advertised. Others acclaimed its complexity and predicted it would stand the test of time

In the United States, a general criticism was its slow pacing that detracts from other strengths; Sheila Benson from the Los Angeles Times called it "Blade Crawler", while Pat Berman in The State and Columbia Record described it as "science fiction pornography". Pauline Kael noted that with its "extraordinary" congested-megalopolis sets, Blade Runner "has its own look, and a visionary sci-fi movie that has its own look can't be ignored—it has its place in film history" but "hasn't been thought out in human terms." Roger Ebert praised the visuals of both the original Blade Runner and the Director's Cut versions and recommended it for that reason; however, he found the human story clichéd and a little thin. In 2007, upon release of The Final Cut, Ebert somewhat revised his original opinion of the film and added it to his list of Great Movies, while noting, "I have been assured that my problems in the past with Blade Runner represent a failure of my own taste and imagination, but if the film was perfect, why has Sir Ridley continued to tinker with it?"

 

[gabbo]

Right, but it is stylistically used in the film only on Replicants.

I may have to go back and watch in order to verify, but doesn't it only occur with two characters through the entirety of the film, of which one happens to be a replicant and the other Deckard?

 

[BARKSTAR]

I am a fan of Blade Runner and only properly watched it after the release of the 'Final Cut' so I think it has aged well and can certainly find a new audience even now.

I have always had a problem with two scenes in the movie. The first is the opening scene with Holden and Leon. Why the hell is Holden interviewing Leon at the start of the movie? He is in the Tyrell building trying to establish if Leon is a replicant. They developed and manufactured the bloody thing so why is this scene even necessary? Deckard is even shown video footage of every replicant that has escaped so even Bryant has all the information already at his disposal? This makes no sense to me and it's bad enough he gets into the Tyrell building so easily with a gun and also escapes with just as little effort!

Secondly, with this being set in the future with flying automobiles, cutting edge genetic technology etc, are we meant to believe security cameras are not used as widely in this new day and age? Tyrell must have surely have known that there would have been two people in the lift leading up to his chambers? The intercom system even instructs him that Sabastian is in the lift but no further mention of another life form being present in there at all? Bit too far fetched to believe that one.

Other than that, I have given it multiple viewings and it is definitely a film that grows on you more after the first viewing.

 

[NullPointer]

I'm sure by the time the Tyrell security techs were done zooming, panning, enhancing, magnifying and printing a hard copy of the camera feed the interviewer was already dead.

 

[Deleted member 102362]

There are 5, not 6.
6 (as well as "four to go") was an error that slipped by because they had already filmed that scene before cutting out Mary. And the edits caused more continuity errors.

About 57,000 cuts/variations of this film exist, so believe what you want. Ridley Scott moved things around for "four to go" to make sense, and he had the actor's son come in and dub "five" instead of "six" for the briefing scene, but I guess he didn't like the result as I haven't seen this included in any cut.

http://bladerunner.wikia.com/wiki/The_Six_Renegade_Replicants

So now people try to bury the error by claiming that Rachael or Deckard is the sixth.
It's worse than people who try to explain away the Millenium Falcon completing the Kessel Run in under 12 Parsecs.

The Final Cut has Bryant say there were six initially, but two got fried running through an electrical field trying to infiltrate Tyrell Corp (this was also in the workprint.) So four are left. I'm not pushing the "Deckard is the sixth replicant" theory.

I have always had a problem with two scenes in the movie. The first is the opening scene with Holden and Leon. Why the hell is Holden interviewing Leon at the start of the movie? He is in the Tyrell building trying to establish if Leon is a replicant. They developed and manufactured the bloody thing so why is this scene even necessary? Deckard is even shown video footage of every replicant that has escaped so even Bryant has all the information already at his disposal? This makes no sense to me and it's bad enough he gets into the Tyrell building so easily with a gun and also escapes with just as little effort!

Secondly, with this being set in the future with flying automobiles, cutting edge genetic technology etc, are we meant to believe security cameras are not used as widely in this new day and age? Tyrell must have surely have known that there would have been two people in the lift leading up to his chambers? The intercom system even instructs him that Sabastian is in the lift but no further mention of another life form being present in there at all? Bit too far fetched to believe that one.

Other than that, I have given it multiple viewings and it is definitely a film that grows on you more after the first viewing.

1) Watch this.

2) Watch this.

 

[ssowinski]

I agree with the OP. Will watch again to see if it is any better the secong time as many of you have said.

 

[captive]

man this thread is hilarious, the fans of the film are like trolling themselves at how pissed off they get that people can't understand this film.

the first time i saw the film was in college in an english literature class, I was excited to see the film as I had heard a lot of good things about it. So I watched it intently, but 90% of the class was asleep. A lot of people don't get it and a lot of people don't care to get it, is it really that offensive to you?

 

[IISANDERII]

You're a Soong android, not a Tyrell replicant.

How is it that this post comes before

I am not a replicant.

this post? I've seen this happen before, years ago on a different board.

 

[gabbo]

The Final Cut has Bryant say there were six initially, but two got fried running through an electrical field trying to infiltrate Tyrell Corp (this was also in the workprint.) So four are left. I'm not pushing the "Deckard is the sixth replicant" theory.

1) Watch this.

2) Watch this.

Isn't the reason Leon is interviewed explained by Holden before he starts the test anyway?
I really need to hit up the deleted scenes on the BR, some of these are rather interesting.

 

[Metal-Geo]

How is it that this post comes before

this post? I've seen this happen before, years ago on a different board.

Post editing?

 

[Eidan]

Sir I challenge you to a duel.

I would have made a Fight Club reference, but I decided against it. I really hate that damn movie.

 

[Deleted member 102362]

How is it that this post comes before

this post? I've seen this happen before, years ago on a different board.

I edited my post after he made his to include a reply to his.

 

[Woz]

I may have to go back and watch in order to verify, but doesn't it only occur with two characters through the entirety of the film, of which one happens to be a replicant and the other Deckard?

• The Owl
• Rachel
• Priss
• Deckard

 

[Dilly]

man this thread is hilarious, the fans of the film are like trolling themselves at how pissed off they get that people can't understand this film.

the first time i saw the film was in college in an english literature class, I was excited to see the film as I had heard a lot of good things about it. So I watched it intently, but 90% of the class was asleep. A lot of people don't get it and a lot of people don't care to get it, is it really that offensive to you?

It gets offensive when those people try to present themselves as experts of cinema and proclaim things like Kubrick wasn't good at pacing.

 

[gabbo]

• The Owl
• Rachel
• Priss
• Deckard

The owl... that's the one always flickering in my head. Time to rewatch the movie it seems.

 

[danwarb]

I saw it on Blu-Ray a few years ago and I've played it a few times since then. It's a brilliant movie. Seems a little slow at first but it grows with subsequent viewing.

 

[Dommo]

• The Owl
• Rachel
• Priss
• Deckard

Definitely also happens with Roy Batty.

 

[IISANDERII]

man this thread is hilarious, the fans of the film are like trolling themselves at how pissed off they get that people can't understand this film.

Not anger but pity. Like feeling sorry for children from poor areas that have never had the chance to learn to read.

 

[raebodep]

I can understand why people feel the need to contribute to a backlash against things that are popular that they just can't appreciate. I feel the same way sometimes but I also recognize that everyone is standing in a different position so they can't all see the same things you do.

I've seen Blade Runner dozens of times and it still floors me every time but if you don't like it, that's cool too... I guess.... weirdos.

 

[gabbo]

Definitely also happens with Roy Batty.

See, that to me looks like red eye. Accidentally or not, it doesn't resemble glowing to me.

 

[Winnie the Pimp]

over the years i've come to the realization that if a pretty large group of critics praise a work of fiction repeatedly and i do not "get" it, i often question myself and whether i really gave it a proper chance instead of shrugging it off.

More often than not, i was indeed "wrong" and after trying it again i can often see where the praise was coming from and sort of "learn" to appreciate it...

not everyone is the same though that's for sure and SOME things just won't be for everybody and that's that.

 

[NullPointer]

over the years i've come to the realization that if a pretty large group of critics praise a work of fiction repeatedly and i do not "get" it, i often question myself and whether i really gave it a proper chance instead of shrugging it off.

More often than not, i was indeed "wrong" and after trying it again i can often see where the praise was coming from and sort of "learn" to appreciate it...

not everyone is the same though that's for sure and SOME things just won't be for everybody and that's that.

That's where I'm coming from. I don't care whether somebody likes the movie or not - nothing works for everyone. But what I see a lot of in this thread is people who just don't get it, and mostly because of a seeming lack of patience or an inability to look beyond the surface or make connections for themselves when presented with some ambiguity. And yeah, that makes me a lil sad.

 

[Suairyu]

See, that to me looks like red eye. Accidentally or not, it doesn't resemble glowing to me.

Where are you getting the notion that they should be "glowing"? If they were actually emitting a red light it'd be very easy to tell who was and wasn't a replicant.

The suggestion is that artificial eyes are susceptible to producing the "red eye" effect without a camera under certain lighting conditions. Or, perhaps, it's not actually existing in the real world at all and is simply a visual clue for the audience.

Either way, you do not get a talented visual director like Ridley Scott making a mistake as basic as red eye on a camera lens. Or any director, really. When was the last time you saw red eye in a film? The lights had to set the lights just so to achieve that effect as it's really bloody difficult to do it on a motion camera.

 

[Liquidsnake]

I wasn't even able to watch this movie after the first hour. It was a bunch of melodramatic nonsense with a drab setting, depressed characters, and a sleep inducing score. I'm a huge fan of 2001 but I couldn't get into Blade Runner.

It's amazing that 2001, excluding the infamous scene at the end, has stood up to the test of time. I'm not sure if Blade Runner has, honestly.

Ok. I don't want to live on this planet anymore.

 

[gabbo]

Where are you getting the notion that they should be "glowing"? If they were actually emitting a red light it'd be very easy to tell who was and wasn't a replicant.

People have been saying 'glowing eyes'. I don't know what comes to mind when you hear that term, but 'glowing', as in 'emitting light' is what I think of, regardless of context, and Batty's eyes are not doing that. It's part red eye, part reflection of the candles lighting the room.

Or, perhaps, it's not actually existing in the real world at all and is simply a visual clue for the audience.

Now this is actually a compelling idea. If Blade Runners could see this in-universe, the Voight-Kampff test would be a lot simpler or outright irrelevant because you'd just need to dim the lights and look a group of people in the eyes. I dunno about him being a replicant, but this is a rather good argument for it.

Either way, you do not get a talented visual director like Ridley Scott making a mistake as basic as red eye on a camera lens. Or any director, really. When was the last time you saw red eye in a film? The lights had to set the lights just so to achieve that effect as it's really bloody difficult to do it on a motion camera.

I wasn't disputing it being a visual cue, since it would be a huge, glaring error to leave red eye in especially after going over the movie 3-4 separate times. I was simply disputing the use of the term 'glowing'.

 

[Woz]

Definitely also happens with Roy Batty.

Oh yeah, I forgot Batty.

 

[toastyToast]

I agree with the OP but then again I might be jaded by the fact that the first time I watched it was in school during English class

Watching it with a group of 20-something 17 year olds made it oddly hilarious. I can't take it seriously now

 

[msdstc]

Perhaps he said that he believes he is a replicant, but I doubt he flat out said that Deckard was intentionally written as a Replicant... I kinow that the director's cut alludes to the idea of him possibly being a replicant.

I hope no one has confirmed on way or the other to be honest. It is one of those topics that is amazing going back and forth on... I would hate to have a definitive answer...Cheapens the movie in my opinion.

"Also in a interview Ridley Scott did in Wired magazine in 2007[2], he explained this matter:

Wired: It was never on paper that Deckard is a replicant.
Scott: It was, actually. That's the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn't like Deckard, and we don't really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let's say, Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it's a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard's daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn't normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it's Gaff's message to say, "I've read your file, mate." That relates to Deckard's first speech to Rachael when he says, "That's not your imagination, that's Tyrell's niece's daydream." And he describes a little spider on a bush outside the window. The spider is an implanted piece of imagination. And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head.
"

 

[Vilix]

Blade Runner is the shit. Fuck yall.

This. What amazes me is that some of the people that don't get, or flat out hate, Bladerunner are splooging all over themselves in the Comic-con thread. Fucking hypocrites.

 

[hateradio]

"Also in a interview Ridley Scott did in Wired magazine in 2007[2], he explained this matter:

Wired: It was never on paper that Deckard is a replicant.
Scott: It was, actually. That's the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn't like Deckard, and we don't really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let's say, Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it's a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard's daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn't normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it's Gaff's message to say, "I've read your file, mate." That relates to Deckard's first speech to Rachael when he says, "That's not your imagination, that's Tyrell's niece's daydream." And he describes a little spider on a bush outside the window. The spider is an implanted piece of imagination. And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head."

Seriously, don't do this to me.

 

[Suairyu]

Seriously, don't do this to me.

The exact same thing has been repeated multiple times in this thread, the last Blade Runner GAF thread and across the internet and magazines since the Director's Cut restored the unicorn dream sequence.

It's been known fact for over a decade.

And even if Ridley had never confirmed it in an interview (and he's confirmed it in many), it'd still be known fact as the film quite distinctly makes the point if you look carefully.

 

[Dead Man]

"Also in a interview Ridley Scott did in Wired magazine in 2007[2], he explained this matter:

Wired: It was never on paper that Deckard is a replicant.
Scott: It was, actually. That's the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn't like Deckard, and we don't really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let's say, Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it's a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard's daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn't normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it's Gaff's message to say, "I've read your file, mate." That relates to Deckard's first speech to Rachael when he says, "That's not your imagination, that's Tyrell's niece's daydream." And he describes a little spider on a bush outside the window. The spider is an implanted piece of imagination. And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head.
"

Yeah, I believe Deckard is intended to be a replicant, but to me the movie works so much better if he is not. Less things to try to explain.

 

[soundscream]

Watched final cut last night on HD DVD (lol) movie is just as good as I remembered.
Can't wait for 2019 Atari and PanAm make a comeback, off world colonies and flying cars!

 

[Deleted member 102362]

Watched final cut last night on HD DVD (lol) movie is just as good as I remembered.
Can't wait for 2019 Atari and PanAm make a comeback, off world colonies and flying cars!

I bought a 360 HD-DVD player solely so I could watch an HD copy of the Final Cut (though I have a Blu-ray player/copy now.)

 

[Slackbladder]

Is it not reasonable to say the whole cyberpunk/bleak futuristic look (designed in great part by Syd Mead) that's so common place today? Were there any films or animation that had that look before Blade Runner? Isn't Blade Runner a cinematic archetype now, at least visually?
If nothing else that's a hell of a legacy.

 

[Plywood]

Well I took another shot at the film(Final Cut) and found the 2nd hour more enjoyable than the first. Though Salome running around in that plastic while Deckard bumped into half of New York was annoying and Leon's crazy eye made me hate him. Deckard's glowing eyes seemed intentional. The Deckard/Rachaelkiss scene seemed a bit rapey. Overall on my second run I did find myself appreciating the aesthetics and the music more.

Now the issue I have with the theory that Deckard is a replicant is that if he is than wouldn't he have the superior strength, agility, etc. that the other replicants had? The ending also seemed to imply that Gaff knew he was a replicant and that he was going to go after Rachael.

Course I just read this bit off wiki:

Blade Runner's dark paranoid atmosphere – and multiple versions of the film – adds fuel to the speculation and debate over this issue.

In the book, Rick Deckard (the main character) is at one point tricked into following an android, who believes himself to be a police officer, to a faked police station. Deckard then escapes and "retires" some androids there before returning to his own police station. However, Deckard takes the Voight-Kampff (different spelling) test and it fails to indicate that he is an android.

Harrison Ford, who played Deckard in the film, has said that he did not think Deckard was a replicant, and also states he and the director had discussions that ended in the agreement that the character was human. However, according to several interviews with director Ridley Scott, Deckard is indeed a replicant.[2] He collects photographs, seen crowding over his piano, yet has no obvious family, beyond a reference to his ex-wife (who called him cold fish). In a scene where Deckard talks with Rachael, their eyes both appear to shine in the way indicative of Replicants.[original research?]

Furthermore in the Director's Cut police officer Gaff (played by Edward James Olmos) leaves Rick Deckard an origami Unicorn a day after Rick dreamed of one. Just before Deckard finds the unicorn, Gaff says to him in passing, "It's too bad she [Rachael] won't live...then again, who does?". A unicorn can also be seen briefly in a scene in J. F. Sebastian's home, amongst scattered toys (to the right of a sleeping Sebastian, while Pris snoops around his equipment). Unicorns also appear several times in the dream sequences of the director's cut, and as it is explained in the film; Rachel's memories are known by her creators, e.g. the memory Rachel has of the spiders (as explained to her by Deckard in the movie). That Gaff is leaving origami unicorns at Deckard's house, implies that Gaff is aware of the content of Deckard's unicorn dream.

The dream may not be uniquely Deckard's, as the unicorn does appear in J.F. Sebastian's house. As J.F. designed the "brain" of the Nexus-6 (and other) replicants, one could take the opinion that the unicorn dreams are a "personal touch" added to some or all Nexus-6 (and above) "brains." Since we are not privy to the dreams of the other replicants, this is unknown - however it does add weight to the argument. From this one could also speculate that Gaff himself is a replicant and may share in the same imbedded memory.[original research?]

Paul Sammon, author of Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner, has suggested in interviews that Deckard may be a Nexus-7, a next-generation replicant who possesses no superhuman strength or intelligence, but brain implants that complete the human illusion. This view is shared by Ridley Scott.[3] Sammon also suggests that Nexus-7 replicants may not have a preset lifespan (i.e., they could be immortal). If so, this may suggest that Rachael is also a Nexus-7.[4]

Further, Sammon stated that Ridley Scott thought it would be far more provocative to imply that Deckard was a replicant, without giving a definitive answer. This ties back into the central theme of "what is it to be human?" What is important is not so much whether Deckard is a replicant or not, but that very possibility and uncertainty further blurs the line between humans and replicants.[5]

So I'm not sure what to think.

 

[Fjordson]

Yeah, I've always heard that, if Deckard was indeed a Replicant, he was most likely a different model, and thus didn't possess the same advantages that a Batty or someone similar did.

 

[Ether_Snake]

Yeah, I believe Deckard is intended to be a replicant, but to me the movie works so much better if he is not. Less things to try to explain.

I don't agree, I think it works in both cases.

The Voight-Kampf test is an empathy test, and Deckard shows complete lack of empathy in the world movie, until near the end. Rachel completely fails the test too. But after she finds out she is a replicant with a short life span she starts to act more human. Same for Deckard after he almost dies.

Also the photos he has are like 1950s photos, as if someone thought that making the photos look old would work better on his psyche.

 

[Barack Lesnar]

Some movies are out of reach for certain viewers. It is an inherent flaw in the human reproductive system that gets carried over from parent to sibling.

You might try to read the book that the movie is based on, but I doubt it would improve the situation.

Here are some movies that might be more up your alley: shit.

I'm dying. If there's ever been a better first reply I'd like to see it.

 

[gabbo]

Is it not reasonable to say the whole cyberpunk/bleak futuristic look (designed in great part by Syd Mead) that's so common place today? Were there any films or animation that had that look before Blade Runner? Isn't Blade Runner a cinematic archetype now, at least visually?
If nothing else that's a hell of a legacy.

Is it not reasonable to say the futuristic look (partly designed by Sid Mead) that's so common place is ...what? If you meant that the world Blade Runner inhabits has becomes the defacto visual for cyberpunk, then I would party agree. Up until the Matrix, most cyberpunk took on a bleak, grimy visual look filled with a wide palette of colours, though mainly browns (which in part I would say was inspired by the workers city in Metropolis), the other half tends to have a sterile, overly clean look filled with greens and silvers/whites.

<wiki>

Whether he's human or replicant doesn't even matter to overall theme of the movie really, since Roy Batty brings the philosophy to the forefront just before he dies, and leaves Deckard to ponder it. Also, yes, his encounter with Rachel does tend to fall on the 'rape' side of things, even if the movie overlooks this, or seems to.

 

[Dastardly Jerks]

It didn't answer the question "Do Androids dream of electric sheep?" though.

 

[gabbo]

It didn't answer the question "Do Androids dream of electric sheep?" though.

No, but [human] Deckard does.

 

[Macready1306]

Damn, I feel bad for a lot of people.



It had almost no impact when it was released, too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blade_Runner#Reception

John Carpenter's The Thing never did well at the box office. It was a critical and commercial failure at the time and only found success in later years.
Blade Runner was a very misunderstood film at the time. Much like The Thing, they both have stood the test of time to become genre classics (John Carpenter's The Thing being my favorite film of all time)!