When they are wrong about their own work - Page 3

Indeed, and here's yet another take:

The Future Mecha start out curious about their Human "ancestors". They setup David with the Blue Fairy then Monica to observe the affect of Human love. In so doing, they learn empathy and perhaps the possibility to fell love themselves (as evidenced by the tone of the narration, which is not cold and inhuman but shows that they understand and empathize with David's plight)

I remember A.O. Scott's review had a cool take on the ending's emotional complexity.

That's actually a more interesting read. I'm going to have to watch it again with that in mind.
Good thing it didn't happen, then. See my earlier post, and the entire ensuing discussion previous to your post.
I'm not beyond admitting that there are ways in which that film could have been improved. What you just said is in no way one of them.

I saw that. As much as the ending is open to interpretation, your view makes sense, but I find no indication from the film itself that the final scenes shouldn't be taken literally.

I know it's ridiculous to insist the movie should have ended the way I described, but if it had, I think the point would have stood. I was joking when I said "happy ending," as David's blind devotion to what amounts to a lump of living genetic material would have been clear. He was programmed to love a thing. He never learned to love his mother as a person. I would have preferred to see it end on a more bittersweet note, rather than a simply bitter note disguised as a happy ending.

But really, any way the horrible logic holes in the final scenes could have been closed would have made a better ending. An ending, happy or sad, never requires a sudden helping of nonsense in order to parallel folk or fairy tales.

Yeah, I don't see an indication to believe that the Mecha have manufactured the whole "we can bring Monica back" thing. The scene with the Mechas observing the Blue Fairy conversation from above creates real problems for reading it all as a manufactured lie. If we never got that moment from the Mecha's POV, then I'd be more inclined to be skeptical about the whole affair.

And, again, writer Sarah Maitland, who worked on ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE with Kubrick, said that the intent behind the scene was to suggest that Monica's resurrection was, indeed, real. Not that authorial intent is definitive, mind you, but it's worth noting.

See, I think it did end on a bittersweet note. It just didn't spoonfeed that to the audience. I've never understood how anybody can look at that scenario and come away thinking that it was a lovely, happy ending. But it lets you think that if you really want to. Maybe it says more about the person watching it than the filmmakers.

My feeling is that the creation of David is a monstrous act. David is a creature that wants with the fierce intensity of a young child, but will never grow out of it, or ever truly get what it wants. That's a pretty awful thought, and I think the film is aware of it.

I agree with that. My only true problem with the film is the the way the ending is forced by some very clumsy dialogue.

I want to know what stunt poop thinks of it all.

Getting back to BLADE RUNNER, did Scott always insist Deckard was a Replicant, or only after the director's cut was released in the early 90s?

He's never given a good reason why he thinks he is a replicant – other than an ironic twist – unless I’ve missed something. Still haven’t worked my way through all the final cut dvds.

On the other hand, Ford says he isn’t. Not sure about Peoples and I haven’t read the book. Personally I think it robs the movie of it’s impact and meaning, and doesn’t really add to it.

Given that Eddie Olmos leaves the origami unicorn at the end, I find that a strong indicator that Decker is likely a replicant. What other purpose would that scene serve?

Well that's the standard reason. But why would Olmos have access to his dreams?

Why doesn't Deckard have super strength like thr other Replicants? Why don't they recognise him, or at the very least realise he is ? It just seems like an afterthought Scott had.

My interpretation is that Deckard is a new model (as is Rachael), and the whole movie is a test being put upon him by the Tyrell Corporation in conjunction with the LAPD. Olmos is the liason for both programs, and is there to observe and report on what Deckard is capable of. As well, Olmos knows what's in Deckard's head for the same reasons that Deckard knew what was in Rachael's during the Voight-Kampff test: it was his job.

When it becomes clear that the experiment is compromised (not to mention moot, due to Tyrell's death), Olmos lets Deckard escape to parts unknown, giving him only the slightest clue to the puzzle Deckard has been working on.

I see Deckard and Rachael both as the next level in cybertronics to the point that they, nor anyone else, can't tell they aren't human. Will they die after four years? Will they live forever? Who knows?

That's a stretch. If it's a test, how do they let the cop at the beginning get blown away? Did they let the replicants escape? I don't see any evidence of this, and I don't think Scott or Peoples have ever mentioned this.

Maybe it's not the LAPD. Maybe it's just Olmos.

Whatever the case, Olmos seemingly knowing that Deckard is a replicant puts the entire film in a different context.

Pretty much everyone involved with the movie except Ridley Scott thinks Deckard is human.

Philip K. Dick thought Deckard was human, the screenwriters thought Deckard was human, Harrison Ford thought Deckard was human, Rutger Hauer thought Deckard was human, and even Ridley Scott, as he said in 1982, merely wanted to suggest that Deckard might be a replicant before apparently deciding for everyone that he was.

According to Future Noir, the Blade Runner "bible," Ridley Scott thought while making the movie that it would be interesting to suggest that Deckard might be a replicant.

Over the years, that's changed to Scott's current "Deckard is a replicant and you're an idiot if you don't get it" stance.

Both sides argue forcefully and convincingly for either side. Personally I think the movie makes no thematic sense if he isn't human. To me the whole point is that the replicants are more human than Deckard the human is.

Well, it primarily indicates that Olmos was there and decided to let Rachel live, for Deckard's sake. The fact that it's a unicorn could either be seen as a coincidence, which may have some thematic but not necessarily narrative significance, or signify that Olmos has some access to Deckard's dreams.

Jesus Christ people are discussing movies?

Considering that we get Deckard's unicorn vision twice in the film, I can't see how it can be coincidence. It's quite clearly the apex of that arc.

See, I disagree. I don't think the point of the replicants' struggle was to show them being MORE than human, just URGENTLY human. Whether or not Deckard is human isn't important in that context, because both Deckard and the replicants think he is.

Yeah, I forgot that Olmos was making Origami throughout the movie. Was the Unicorn dream in the shooting script or something Scott added at the last minute?

I don't like it when people say that Deckard being a replicant ruins the point of Blade Runner. I think they are seriously misunderstanding the movie.

It barely MATTERS if Deckard is a human or a replicant. Because they're all the same thing. There's no difference. They're both live, they'll both die, and they'll both be forgotten. If Deckard is a human or a replicant, the point of the movie doesn't change either way. Because the point of the movie is that all of us, no matter how different we seem, all suffer from the same condition - mortality. Replicants, human, it doesn't matter - it's all life. If Deckard is a replicant or a human - his story is the same, his feelings are the same, and the movie is pretty much the same. This is why Ridley never comes out and expresses outright that Deckard is a replicant - because the truth on this matter does not truly matter.

Also, I've always felt that Deckard did have the super strength of the replicants. After all, he gets the piss kicked out of him in the movie from nearly beginning to end and doesn't suffer any substantial injuries. You can say that this is just movie logic - but I think it's evidence of his superior strength and stamina.

The replicants aren't more human than human - they're just as human as human.

Just to clarify: just because I'm not on the Deck-a-rep side doesn't mean I wanna squash debate. Quite the opposite; I resent that Ridley Scott has effectively ended the debate by saying unambiguously that Deckard is a replicant. It's an interesting debate to have, and it gets to the heart of the film itself.

Part of my take: The Director's Cut puts things in to make the Deck-a-rep case stronger. For instance, you lose the narration, where Deckard refers to having had a wife. (Which, of course, the Deck-a-reps will say is just an implanted memory, yada yada yada.) But again, why design such a fucked-up unhappy alcoholic blade runner who has to be dragged in to do one last job? Wouldn't you create a blade runner who's gung-ho about it? Or reprogram him if he's getting sick of retiring his fellow replicants? The whole theory just brings up issues that make no sense within the narrative.

Deckard clearly does not have super strength. His fingers get busted for christs sake, and he's clearly in a lot of pain. Daryl Hannah beats the crap out of him.

And the movie isn't just about mortality. Ridley has said he firmly believes Deckard is a replicant, and he thinks anyone who disagrees is an idiot.

We get the unicorn vision twice? I remember it being present only once.

The unicorn dream could just be a unicorn dream. According to various dream-interpretation dictionaries, a unicorn in a dream "symbolizes high ideals, hope and insight in a current situation. It also symbolizes power, gentleness, and purity."

It also indicates a one-of-a-kind creature. In the original version with the happy ending, Gaff's unicorn origami would seem to mean that Rachael is a one-of-a-kind replicant — no termination date. Or that she's a magical, unreal creature. Also, that Gaff was there and didn't kill her. Deckard's nod when he picks up the unicorn fits more with "Okay, Gaff, you were here and you didn't kill Rachael, which probably means you're gonna let us get away. Good." It doesn't seem to indicate he realizes now that he's a replicant. You would think he would have more of a reaction to that than a nod.

In subsequent editions it could just signify Rachael's uniqueness as a replicant that was personally developed by Tyrell and not just an assembly-line unit.

I don't think he was designed to be an unhappy alcoholic Blade Runner. I think he's an alcoholic unhappy Blade Runner because his life is miserable. It's barely a life. Many would become unhappy and alcoholics. I don't think they can stop replicants from being unhappy.

Also, they don't need to reprogram just because he's getting sick of retiring replicants. He still does it. He does everything he's told until the end. He's a good, obedient replicant. They don't care if he hates himself and drinks himself to sleep as long as he does his job.

Deckard may have been gung ho about his job at first - but the years have worn on him. You can't program life experience.

Scott's explanation. I don't think Deckard was ever sitting around wondering whether or not he's a replicant. You can't infer that he definitively is a replicant just from his facial expressions at the end. I think Wired gets it.

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.

Wired: You shot the unicorn dream sequence as part of the original production. Why didn't you include it in either the work print or the initial release?

Scott:As I said, there was too much discussion in the room. I wanted it. They didn't want it. I said, "Well, it's a fundamental part of the story." And they said, "Well, isn't it obvious that he's a replicant?" And I said, "No more obvious than that he's not a replicant at the end." So, it's a matter of choice, isn't it?

Wired: When Deckard picks up the origami unicorn at the end of the movie, the look on his face says to me, "Oh, so Gaff was here, and he let Rachael live." It doesn't say, "Oh my God! Am I a replicant, too?"

Scott:No? Why is he nodding when he looks at this silver unicorn? I'm not going to send up a balloon. Doing the job he does, reading the files he reads on other replicants, Deckard may have wondered at one point, "Am I human or am I a replicant?" That's in his innermost thoughts. I'm just giving you the fully fleshed-out possibility to justify that look at the end, where he kind of glints and looks angry. To me, it's an affirmation. He nods, he agrees. "Ah hah! Gaff was here. I've been told."
Wired: Harrison Ford is on record saying Deckard is not a replicant.
Scott:Yeah, but that was, like, 20 years ago. He's given up now. He said, "OK, mate. You win! Anything! Just put it to rest."

http://www.wired.com/entertainment/h...#ixzz0sLKQa92R

Well I guess that settles it.

I wouldn't really say this is an instance of a director not getting his own work, I suppose.

Well, it sort of is. Who cares anyway? It's an interesting discussion.

And does that article really settle it? Scott just states his reasons. Doesn't mean he's right. Especially if it doesn't really make sense. Devin explained it well in his review of the Final cut. I'll link it if I can find it.

EDIT: Here it is. Never mind Gaff being in on it - in itself a stretch - what about Deckard's boss, M Emmet Walsh?

http://chud.com/articles/articles/12...CUT/Page1.html


"think that's giving Ridley Scott way too much credit here, since his final vision of the film includes the ridiculous and unsupportable idea that Deckard is a replicant. The ending of the Final Cut (like the ending of the Director's Cut) hints that Scott is one of those filmmakers who just doesn't understand his own movie.

There's no way that Deckard can be a replicant, and the movie almost goes out of its way to prove that. The most obvious piece of evidence is that his history as a Blade Runner is not just remembered by him but by other characters - short of M Emmet Walsh being a replicant or weirdly in on Deckard being a replicant, how could the two have worked together in the past, which they certainly did? The argument essentially has to end there, because to claim that Walsh's character was in on it is stretching any reality at all and taking things that the text never delivers."

I feel that people like the idea of Deckard being a replicant - if for no other reason than for the sake of a twist - and are ignoring facts and jumping to conclusions to fit their belief.

Ridley Scott left it ambiguous enough in the film, so that it is now and forever ambiguous in the film, no matter how many interviews he gives.

I like the SUGGESTION of it; it makes the film resonate further, and provokes discussion. And it adds to Zodiac's take of "they're all 'human'." But the fanboy-ish, "yeah, but what was the answer REALLY??" stuff is for the birds.

I find it really odd that people get so worked up about the ambiguous endings of not one, but two movies that intentionally leaves the parallels between man and machines vague. Very interesting to me.

Yeah, it's machines that have to deal in absolute certainty and humans who can handle the abstract and the vague, yet we're demanding certainty and confirmation.

But that's it, I don't think Scott did intend it to be ambiguous. And how can it be? He either is a replicant or he isn't. It's not like SHUTTER ISLAND, where you could infer a couple of different endings.

Awesome

In the movie, it is clearly ambiguous as there are hints but it is never said outright.

From interviews, it's clear that Scott's take on it was that Deckard was a replicant. But there's nothing in the movie other then suggestions to that. There's no scene where Deckard confronts his true nature. It's definitley ambiguous, and I agree with Phil, the film works best that way. Fans taking a stand and insisting it's one way or the other are kinda missing the beautiful ambiguity in the film. And I agree, Scott probably shouldn't of said anything about it. But one should always use THE FILM and only the film as a primary source - interviews and statements by the artists can be great to read and are often enlightening, but an artist's interpetation of his work is just one reading of it. The fact that Blade Runner can work with different people on different levels for different reasons is probably the biggest reason it's such an enduring classic.

Well, that and the genre defining production design.

The unicorn is George Lucas' balls.

This would be a perfect time for a facepalm. Let's just all take a deep breath and imagine one.

On AI:

The Mecha at the end are historians. They are trying to reacquaint themselves with their ancient forebears and do this, finally, through David. After this, they outright say they want to grant him any wish. He is important to them and they seem to have developed a lot of compassion. The liaison mecha seems fatherly, even.

Chris Hill's objections are particularly weird when weighed against a movie where there are androids. So there can be androids but not a cloning technique that accelerates cell division and growth? This isn't exactly a new idea. No, not even in 2001 when AI came out. And why can't it turn out to be impossible for a human clone to survive more than 24 hours? They keep it vague as to why they die, but it's probably some kind of internal cellular dysfunction. Moreover, why is it stupid that she remembers some part of who she was when she is basically reconstructed from David's memories and imagination anyway? Not hard for a magically advanced mechanical race to implant this? The exposition delivered to David is very like how an adult might explain things to a child, which David pretty much is. Why should this be hard to swallow?

On Blade Runner:

Deckard's a replicant. Not only do they have the unicorn stuff but there are other hints including minor ones like Rachel asking, for the audience, whether he's ever taken the test himself. I can't recall what he says but it's moot because even if he remembers doing it, it's not necessarily the case that he did. Doesn't he also have a set of polaroids much like Leon's? That was a big clue for me, if I remember correctly.

Anyway, some of the objections are weird. He doesn't have super strength because he wasn't engineered to have it. The other replicants are off-world combat models mostly, except Leon who is a work model that needs to be very strong. The Chief having history with Deckard only has to mean that Deckard has been in service for a while. Probably more than 4 years but what of it?

A director pretty much has to take a side so he can get a coherent film. Doesn't mean that's the only interpretation.

Woody's choices aren't that surprising after seeing the documentary looking back on his career and all of his films almost one by one (up to that point) back in 2002. I remember how at the end he said he's willing to admit when his films don't turn out well and can acknowledge that he's messed up a few times. Then he states that he believes "Hollywood Ending" is one of the best movies he's made in a long time.

To me the worst example of people being frustratingly wrong-headed about their work is the people behind "The Simpsons", who say in interviews shit like, "The show is better than it's ever been", "There's no end in sight", and "With how well we're doing, we could see the show going on for ANOTHER 20 seasons". Either they're deluded to an incredible extreme, or they're just flat out lying just to put on a brave face in front of the press and they know it. Just let the fucking thing die already instead of further tainting the legacy of the first 8 seasons.

Deckard is a sled.

I don't have a problem with cloning or rapid growth. I have a problem with recovering memories and personality from DNA (I also despise that they did this in Alien Resurrection, in which Sigourney Weaver is cloned with all of her memories from genetic material). Did they explicitly state her memories and personality came from David's "brain?" I believe they did specifically state that clones could only live for 24 hours because of some universal laws they had discovered. That's totally stupid. Why is it such an arbitrary period of time? How do the laws of the universe know how long one Earth day is? If they had said there was some kind of molecular instability in the clone it would have been just slightly easier to swallow.

I maintain that Deckard's human. The V.O. while he's looking at the origami is, "It's too bad she won't live...but then again, who does?" equating the unicorn with Rachel, not Deckard, and that Gaff spared her for Deckard's benefit.

It's also more interesting thematically if the human Deckard falls in love with a Repilcant when he's normally tasked with airing them out.

No. This is the dialogue from the film:

"So, we began a project that would make it possible to recreate the living body of a person long dead from the DNA in a fragment of bone or mummified skin. We also wondered, would it be possible to retrieve a memory trace in resonance with a recreated body. And do you know what we found? We found... the very fabric of space-time itself appeared to store information about every event which had ever occurred in the past."

The Mecha actually says "day," not "24 hours." There's a difference, given the explanation made to David. It's possible they're generalizing, and that it doesn't exactly correlate to an earth day. In fact, the way it's explained, it doesn't seem to be the same for every individual. It's unconsciousness that brings about death:

"For those who were resurrected only lived through a single day of renewed life. When the resurrectees fell asleep on the night of their first new day, they died, again. As soon as they became unconscious, their very existence faded away into darkness."

Your "criticism" is kind of nitpicky whichever way you slice it, Chris. It can all pretty much be covered by the glossy way the mecha explains things to David.

Chosing to interpret Gaff's unicorn as a acknowledgement of Rachael instead of being connected to Deckard's dream about unicorns is a weird choice that I can't put any sense to.

More interesting that Deckard acknowledging that he's a replicant and embracing himself and Rachael, regardless? Hardly.

Yes, the idea that he MAY be a replicant is far more resonant with the themes of the movie than any definitive push in one way or another. The whole I think he is or I think he isn't is kind of missing the point.

Hope I'm not too late to this party, but I partly agree. The replicants ARE human, as someone said earlier in this thread. "Replicant" is a term which allows these people to be exploited in what is literally slave labor. The definition of "slave," by necessity, must dehumanize those which fall under its labelling.

I think where I disagree is that steadfastly declaring Deckard to be either replicant or naturally birthed (or alternatively maintaining an ambiguous stance) really have no impact in this scope. Either way, he's still a human being and a person, being exploited by the same system which is also oppressing the replicants. Personally, I think the signs point to Deckard being a replicant, but it just hardly matters at all.

Can someone explain to me why Deckard's boss being in on it is so far fetched? I don't think we see anyone else who has a concrete tether to him from birth in the film.

They could, but it would be pointless. The fact that Nolan ended the film without the top falling means that he at least wanted the debate.