BLADE RUNNER

Do you have the 5 disc set? Every time I say I'm going to try and watch the theatrical cut or workprint I don't and I just watch the Final Cut instead.

No.

No. It's a bit of nothing much. Admittedly, he's not given too much to work with, but I can see countless other actors making more of an impression in the role of Deckard than he does.

Nah.

Watched this on Youtube earlier:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQjC5xlsgWI

He avoids going into the is he/isn't he aspect. More the idea that a man in a paranoid trade might start to think that there could be a file somewhere with his name on it.

Some nice side links there too.

Bladerunner is a result of Talent and Timing (ie: Serendipity). Everybody was at a level beyond an A-Game on this one.

Don't forget to look out for Devin in the bonus features!

Ridley Scott seems to disagree.

I grew up with the Theatrical Cut and so I kind of got used to the voiceover. I still think it's key, early on, in establishing the noiry feel of the film and I actually think it does quite a lot to humanise Deckard whose kind of an impassive dick without the monologue. But it's worth not having it just to not have it over the end, that last bit of voiceover is so grating.

This is one of those films where I think everyone kind of brings their A-Game. I even kind of like Sean Young in the film.

The original ending just doesn't make sense though.

Has anyone ever read the Sammon book on this film? Lots of good stuff.

I think this film needed narration, but the narration in the Theatrical version isn't what was needed. As the Sammon details, VO was in the film from the beginning, but they couldn't get it right. It wasn't Chandleresque enough.

The unused voice-over heard in the Deleted & Alternate Scenes section is both better and worse, simultaneously on-the-mark and off-the-rails. Worth a listen. I like a lot of it better than the V.O. used in the 1982 theatrical cut. But I like the film best without it entirely, even though, I too, grew up with it and have some fondness for it. Every time I see Deckard reading his newspaper across from the noodle bar, I hear "They don't advertise for killers in a newspaper..." in my head.

That Sammon book is a great read.

BlueLouBoyle...not meant as a slam, but I find it hard to believe that 'Blade Runner' doesn't have a thread going already.

Indeed. Unfortunately for Scott, though, artists don't have a definitive hold on the interpretation of their work.

Just did a DarkMite for the thread. Seems the big old Final Cut thread got eaten.

From what I've read, one of the screenwriters did a draft that had some ending VO that talked about Deckard's "maker," which was fairly clear Deckard was talking about God. Scott thought the screenwriter was suggesting that Deckard was a replicant himself and went with it. So given the history of the idea, I'm not sure anyone involved with the film, beyond Scott, thought Deckard was a replicant or that he even should be a replicant.

I always thought that Scott dropped the ball here and short of cheated with making Deckard a replicant. The whole idea of the book is that people who cannot empathize with others are dangerous and should be put down. However, how can someone be an effective killer and not have emotions or empathy. By making a Deckard a replicant, Scott's cheating the central conceit of the film by making it impossible for Deckard to actually have any emotions.

My main problem with the VO is that it's given without ANY enthusiasm whatsoever; it sounds heavily sedated, not hard-boiled. It's a good idea that's been poorly executed.

Yeah, the delivery sure didn't help.

I take issue with this idea that replicants don't have emotions. They very clearly do. They're not robots, they're genetically engineered "androids". Basically, they are post-humans and it is only that they are artificially made to be different in functional and/or cosmetic ways that separates them from "standard" humans. If Deckard is a replicant, he is most likely one somewhat like Rachel. If not a prototype himself, he's made to specific purpose and that purpose isn't loading 500 lb. warheads or fighting wars in some far off corner of the Galaxy.

The other replicants in the movie are models which have increased physical powers due to their function. Even Pris is a pleasure/combat model. That Deckard and/or Rachel aren't their physical match is a product of different functionality so that "hole" is easily filled.

Isn't there something about Harrison Ford disagreeing with the studio mandated narration and doing a half-ass job on purpose? I could be wrong, but no biggie if I am, I've never liked Blade Runner anyway.

I've always felt for the first time viewer you should watch the orginal theatrical version with the narration. From there move on to the no narration and enjoy. As for the Deckard is a replicant thing, I seem to be more and more believing he may well just be a skin job for two reasons that stick out to me even more so than the unicorn business. One, we're told many replicants like to horde photographs to help them feel more human, and in Deckard's apartment we see strewn all over the top of his piano a vast collection from different times pictures of a wide diversity of folks. Seems odd a man living alone would have so many family photos on display like that. Two, throughout the film there is a lighting trick performed on eyes that make them briefly but noticeably shine with a golden luster that fills the entire pupils; this trick happens to only the replicants and Deckard. Just my halfass theories.

On the DVD (somewhere) there's an outtake of Ford recording a voiceover and making a wisecrack about it. Then a producer's voice cuts in with EXCUSE ME DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS and he goes back to work...

And yes, it appears that the Final Cut thread was a major casualty of the Long Halloween. I'm sure part of it is still here though-- maybe I'll try a search later.

If you watch carefully, Holden's eyes also glow a bit in the opening scene. Just another discussion topic on this endlessly discussable movie.

Impossible? The whole movie is about how hard it's getting to prove the difference between a replicant and a human emotionally. Even if they're very childlike in their emotional expression, the replicant crew are constantly shown to be feeling emotion, both positive and negative.

Rachel seems to show the same sort of horror at killing Leon as Deckard shows at killing Zhora.

Scott no doubt laid it on thick for the re-release/director's cut and it effectively put the idea in people's heads to see these other layers at work that only really hardcore viewers dug out previously, but it's not meant to be totally cut and dried as the video above shows.

You have to pick where you stand as a viewer. Are you a person who watches movies primarily as an entertainment (drama/action/SF or under whatever genre distinction) or do you watch them over and over trying to pick up extra meanings (ie: do you watch them as Art)?

When something like the "Deckard is a replicant!" meme comes up in the context of a re-issue, it's there for the people who only ever thought the movie was about a dude who shoots androids for a living but then falls in love with one. Scott knows the film nuts had already dug the possible replicant "twist" out of it.

You might not like it, but the possibility is clearly there in the movie. As Scott says in the video, paranoia goes hand in hand with the other noir genre conventions they were using.

I'm a big fan of this movie (and a big fan of this awesome blu) and I don't get the argument that Deckard's replicant-ness somehow negates the meaning of the film. If anything, it really puts a fine point on the theme most outwardly exemplified by Roy discovering his own sense of humanity. Instead, we also get to see the lives of other replicants who are very different from Roy (Deckard and Rachel). One thing I do appreciate about the theatrical cut is how you can only infer that maybe Deckard is a replicant. It isn't spelled out like in the final cut. The point of the film is made without a big a-ha reveal.

Rewatching the final cut, I'm struck by how differently an early scene with Tyrell and Rachel plays, where Deckard administers the VK test. If Tyrell knew Deckard was a replicant, the whole point of that indulgence was for Tyrell to introduce this idea of the replicant who can really be more human than human to Rachel obviously, but also Deckard. Tyrell is helping him understand who he really is. Although the truth is Deckard probably doesn't care that much anyways. What's the point of that scene? Is it for Tyrell to basically give Rachel to Deckard? Maybe pair them off like a happy robot couple...

Totally agree. I actually think the replicant/no-replicant argument misses the point entirely: there's no difference between humans and replicants that goes deeper than surface characteristics. Consider the fact that, in reality, a genetically manipulated clone would probably be purposefully engineered with some kind of easily identifiable feature. In fact, the film itself touches on this with the serial tag embedded in the snake scale. Therefore, I read the emphasis on an empathy test for identification of replicants to be an intentional statement on the enslavement of people who are only marginally different from the ruling populace.

Well, narratively, I thought that scene was to provide Deckard with an example of how a Nexus 6 would respond to the Voight-Kampff, since Deckard is tasked with detection and elimination of the escaped group. Thematically, it emphasizes the shaky ground upon which the VK test stands. Well, that was how I understood it, anyway.

I know this is an older comment, but I really, really disagree with this summation of the book. I feel that Dick really wanted to shine a light on the hypocrisy of claiming someone has a lack of empathy while simultaneously sentencing that person to death. In the book, for instance, the Voight-Kampff machine can not reliably detect the difference between humans and replicants, with some humans being accidentally killed after a false positive. It also critiques the very meaning of empathy with the introduction of ideas such as Mercerism and the mood organ (which is a very robotic and unnatural way of dealing with and stimulating emotions).

Finally, in the film, the similarity of replicants to humans is used to show that replicants can have good qualities and be sympathetic. However, in the book, the obscuring of replicant and human differences is used to show that humans are actually pretty horrible.

Right, but I think the question here is Tyrell's motivation. Because if ANYONE in the film knows for absolute certain whether Deckard is human, it's Tyrell.

And if you dig into the DVD supplements, one plotline has it that Tyrell himself is a replicant, a proxy for the original human man. This apparently got dropped when the filmmakers decided that the replicants were biological and not mechanical, because there would be no way for Roy to tell. I think the film largely loses the theme of everyone being equally dehumanized.

Regardless of whether Deckard is a human, wouldn't Tyrell's motivation be to comply with the demands of a law enforcement agency? And, if Deckard was a replicant, he'd have been specifically placed within that agency to catch other replicants, so I don't see a motivation for Tyrell to tip his hand. I often miss narrative plot holes, though, so I'm really interested to see more opinions about this scene.

I think if there is a fatal flaw to this film, it's that the themes are largely inherited from Dick's built-in ideas in the novel's setting and plot and play as largely unintentional in the movie itself. However, I think the mileage of artist intention really varies from movie to movie, and Blade Runner definitely works for me. In other words, I think the theme of dehumanization is not lost in the film, it is definitely there, but in the background - possibly due entirely to the source material.

One thing that makes the film so fascinating is the friction between the two main screenplays. Are we in a super-overpopulated megalopolis, or has the majority already gone Off-World, leaving folks entire buildings to themselves? Are replicants clones or robots?

In any other film the contradictions would be destructive, but somehow they complement each other. It's oddly appropriate that this particular movie is a Frankenstein monster.

That is one of the most interesting thoughts I've ever read about this movie. Frankly, it hadn't occurred to me that after showing a crowded dystopia, a lot of the later parts of the movie take place in abandoned buildings.

You know what is interesting, the things you mentioned are specific elements which drove the novel, while being presented ambiguously in the movie. For instance, in my last reading of Do Androids, I specifically looked for signs which would definitively declare the androids either robots or clones, but I believe such a detail to be intentionally ignored. No mention of either blood or circuitry when they're lasered, for instance. Also, the novel makes it a point to mention that healthy humans tend to gather in numbers while chickenheads and other mutants live solitary lives in wastelands and deserted buildings.

I guess for me, the elements which might seem contradictory in a different film feel like an organically presented part of a larger world than what we're specifically shown in the movie. Considering it right now, I think the astounding visuals have a lot to do with that. Perhaps this ties into why Blade Runner can be such a divisive movie with regard to criticism?

Interesting. The movie sort of reverses this, with the grotesques thronging downtown. Indeed, I've always thought it was pretty easy to spot the film's replicants, since (with the exception of Leon) they're far and away the most attractive people onscreen.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. We contextualize while we watch, but the contrasts appear to be unintentional.

But presumably, Deckard is very familiar with VK. In fact, he's so good at administering the test that he could spot a skin job others would never find. And certainly Rachel could pass for human more than any of the Nexus 6s he was been brought back to retire. So, again, why bother making this point if it doesn't apply to his targets? I believe Tyrell, like any other proud parent, wants to see his children thrive. The way he beams with pride at Rachel's relatively complex emotional maturity says it all to me.

I was reading Ebert's Great Movies essay on the Final Cut recently, and he put forth the theory that the reason replicants look so much like humans is Tyrell has/had plans to eventually replace large swaths of humanity with replicants. I'd never heard that before, and I'd be curious to hear what you guys think.

This is a movie, though, that when I saw it in high school, I was very unimpressed, but revisiting it years later, via the Final Cut...something either changed in the movie, or changed in me, because it's probably one of my favorites of all time.

Same as you Rath. It took me 10 years (from 7 to 17) to watch it completely. Then it became my favorite movie along Big Trouble in Little China and The Thing. My Holy Trinity.

It's a mature piece of work, and the Replicant angle is in fact even better now. Sure, the fact that Deckard would be human makes Roy act of saving Deckard more meaningful and powerful, much like Deckard falling for a robot, but if Deckard is a new Nexus, he even more human than Roy, indistinguishable from humans.

Also, it completely blurs our perception of what's artificial or not. We rooted for an "artificial being" all this time. What then?

God I love this movie.

Interesting points, all. To add a point, isn't he shown pictures of the replicants from the very beginning? Wouldn't that make empathy testing kind of a moot point? So, lets see, taking the stance that Deckard is definitely a replicant, he obviously has no knowledge of his true origin. Tyrell would definitely know, as has been pointed out. His superiors definitely know, because Gaff's origami unicorn is an indication that he knows what is in Deckard's head.

So, if I was Deckard's boss, why would I tell him to go all the way to Tyrell Corp. to test the Nexus 6, keeping in mind the above points? Perhaps research on Deckard himself? Observation on how the two replicants respond to each other in the situation?

Right now, it seems like a plot hole to me. I'm very interested to hear if anyone else has some ideas on this.

In the deleted scenes, Holden mentions that replicants have advanced significantly since Deckard was last hunting them. So the visit to Tyrell could just be Deckard doing research.

But yes, the fact that everyone knows what the fugitives look like would seem to simplify things. I think it's another instance where there are two different movies going on.

I always saw it as the LA Rep-Detect Unit had never VK'ed a Nexus-6 -- Holden's doomed session aside -- so indeed, it was a research trip. A first step to understanding this new threat that had never been on Earth before. Presumably, that's what made Deckard special and worth forcing out of retirement, much like Will Graham or Hans Landa: His ability to think like his prey. Although it's not addressed in any version of the film or deleted scenes, I'd guess there would be some kind of legal steps that had to be taken before airing out a potential outlaw replicant.

The VK is almost like 2019's version of Miranda. If a present day cop managed to capture a suspect peacefully, Miranda rights are offered and questioning begins. If a suspect poses an obvious threat, the cop has the right to defend himself with no such protocol. In Deckard's case, there was never opportunity for a VK because they all posed an immediate danger and he was unable to capture any of them, although he did try a more civil approach with Zhora and didn't go to the gun until she attacked him. However, the opening crawl undermines this notion a bit, suggesting that outlaw replicants were to be retired on sight.

There are all kinds of weird logic issues with BLADE RUNNER (why is the massive Tyrell Corporation subcontracting its eyework to a dumpy little one-man shop in the Fourth Sector that anyone can just walk into without a security check?) but that's also part of its endlessly strange charm to me.

Question, from someone who still hasn't read the book: Does anyone outside the Rep-Detect unit know what the VK test is, or what it's for? Obviously, Leon didn't or he wouldn't have sat down in the first place. Rachel is presumably a unique case in that she knows the purpose of the examination (and doesn't know she's artificial). There doesn't seem to be an arrest/interrogation protocol for rogue replicants: once they're identified, they can be destroyed. It's not like they have any civil rights.