CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › BLADE RUNNER 2 Pre Release
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

BLADE RUNNER 2 Pre Release - Page 21

post #1001 of 1173

I saw Blade Runner last night. For the first time in 15 years.

 

Deckard is a dick. The scene where he stalks and kills a terrified Zhora is just painful to watch. Also that scene in his apartment where he takes advantage of Racheal.

 

The film itself is great. The Vangelis music, Rutger Hauer and world building is phenomenal. Sean Young was better than i expected as Rachel (Though her character isn't as important to the plot).

 

I think the version i saw was the Original Theatrical version. Confirm?

 

It had

 

1) Ford narration ("They don't advertise for killers in the newspapers.")

2) Ford finding the Paper Unicorn at his apartment (No Unicorn dream though).

3) The original happy ending.

post #1002 of 1173

post #1003 of 1173

I thought that was wiggly at first!

post #1004 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by felix View Post

I think the version i saw was the Original Theatrical version. Confirm?

It had

1) Ford narration ("They don't advertise for killers in the newspapers.")
2) Ford finding the Paper Unicorn at his apartment (No Unicorn dream though).
3) The original happy ending.

I think the theatrical cut might be the only version of the film to include the narration, but the inclusion of the aerial footage of trees at the end almost certainly confirms it. You saw the original version.
post #1005 of 1173

Ewwww awful Ford narration!

post #1006 of 1173

I did something I don't think I've ever done today. I watched the movie twice: the international theatrical version, my preferred cut, first, followed by the Final Cut, which I had never watched.

 

I've always enjoyed the narration, "happy" ending, and Batty saying "fucker" more than the "intended" version, but I figured let's do them both.

 

My relationship with Blade Runner has only been strong for a decade. I never quite loved the 1992 Director's Cut, but the theatrical cut resounded so much to me when I first saw it that I was afraid to touch the Final Cut.

 

In my opinion, there's a lot to love in both. The Final Cut is clearly the "better" vision and enhances the moody 80's aesthetic, although there's some moments where the color timing feels like a colorized black and white movie, namely closeups and the scenes where Deckard is driving.

 

Meanwhile, in the theatrical cut, the voiceover is sporadic and clearly was intended to clarify subtext for audiences expecting another Star Wars or Indiana Jones type movie.

 

With age, the ambiguity of the original ending, with the unicorn symbolism, still has a feeling of happiness, that it symbolizes Deckard finding that dreams come true, despite Gaff's cryptic comments.

 

No, I still call bullshit on Deckard being a replicant. Why would he be hunting his own? But I don't know.

 

Bring 2049 on.

post #1007 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by HunterTarantino View Post

I did something I don't think I've ever done today. I watched the movie twice: the international theatrical version, my preferred cut, first, followed by the Final Cut, which I had never watched.

I've always enjoyed the narration, "happy" ending, and Batty saying "fucker" more than the "intended" version, but I figured let's do them both.

My relationship with Blade Runner has only been strong for a decade. I never quite loved the 1992 Director's Cut, but the theatrical cut resounded so much to me when I first saw it that I was afraid to touch the Final Cut.

In my opinion, there's a lot to love in both. The Final Cut is clearly the "better" vision and enhances the moody 80's aesthetic, although there's some moments where the color timing feels like a colorized black and white movie, namely closeups and the scenes where Deckard is driving.

Meanwhile, in the theatrical cut, the voiceover is sporadic and clearly was intended to clarify subtext for audiences expecting another Star Wars or Indiana Jones type movie

With age, the ambiguity of the original ending, with the unicorn symbolism, still has a feeling of happiness, that it symbolizes Deckard finding that dreams come true, despite Gaff's cryptic comments.

No, I still call bullshit on Deckard being a replicant. Why would he be hunting his own? But I don't know.

Bring 2049 on.

As we say in my business, Good Words.

About to sit down to watch the Final Cut with Mrs Olmos, who has never seen Blade Runner, in prep for a Friday showing of 2049. I don't expect her to love it, but hoping for appreciation at the minimum.
post #1008 of 1173
I sincerely hope that the question of Deckard's humanity is left open by the new movie, so that those of us who know he's a replicant and those of us who are wrong can both walk away content.
post #1009 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

I sincerely hope that the question of Deckard's humanity is left open by the new movie, so that those of us who know he's a replicant and those of us who are wrong can both walk away content.

I will go to my grave thinking that a human learning something about his humanity from a robot is way way WAY more dramatically interesting and meaningful than a robot becoming self aware.  It just is.  

 

post #1010 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

I will go to my grave thinking that a human learning something about his humanity from a robot is way way WAY more dramatically interesting and meaningful than a robot becoming self aware.  It just is.  



Freeman gets it.
post #1011 of 1173

Not to mention the logic gaps.  Why would you send one of the more realistically human replicants hunting super strength replicants?  Deckard clearly has human traits.  His strength etc is not replicant levels at all.  If you're GOING to use a replicant to hunt replicants why handicap it by making it very human, when being able to throw people through walls would no doubt really really help in his job?

post #1012 of 1173
Dude, read the novel. The entire precinct are replicants and don't know it.

It's super-crazy and doesn't always bear on the film, but it can throw some neat angles on it.
post #1013 of 1173
If I remember right, the one they showed in heavy rotation on cable back in the day was the International version, which had all that stuff, narration, ending, etc. plus a little more footage of nudity and violence. That was also the one you'd find on rental copies of the VHS (I remember there was a blurb on the back "See even more of the year 2019!") So I can't honestly say whether I've even seen the movie as it originally appeared in theaters, or if I'd have noticed the difference if I had.

I've only recently seen the Final Cut, which doesn't seem to depart in any real way from the Director's (the "fucker"/"father" change is the only thing I picked up). So between the two main "modes" of the movie (narration/no narration, happy ending/no happy ending, no unicorn/unicorn), I'm with Hunter in liking them both. The earlier versions are what ingrained the movie into my imagination growing up, but you can't say that the new versions aren't an improvement overall.

Deckard as replicant makes almost zero sense, of course, narratively or thematically. I'm not one to disregard author's intent, but when it's after the fact like this and the idea is just unsupported by the bulk of the story, you have to say Scott is talking through his hat. I don't mind the little ambiguity the unicorn thing gives the ending, though. It's a pretty Dickian (Dickish?) note in a story about what it means to be human to ask whether you can be absolutely sure if you qualify or not. Taking Scott's position on this into account, I'm interested in seeing how it gets addressed in the new movie.
post #1014 of 1173
Replicants aren't robots.
post #1015 of 1173

Yeah, they're humans!

post #1016 of 1173

Are you a replican or a replicant?


Edited by Barry Woodward - 10/2/17 at 1:01am
post #1017 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightning Slim View Post

Dude, read the novel. The entire precinct are replicants and don't know it.

It's super-crazy and doesn't always bear on the film, but it can throw some neat angles on it.

Don't give me that read the novel, read the comic books, read the fucking cereal box CRAP!  What matters is the film.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Macken View Post

Replicants aren't robots.

Whatever, androids, fucking gleep gloops.  SEMANTICS!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Slim View Post

Deckard as replicant makes almost zero sense, of course, narratively or thematically. I'm not one to disregard author's intent, but when it's after the fact like this and the idea is just unsupported by the bulk of the story, you have to say Scott is talking through his hat. I don't mind the little ambiguity the unicorn thing gives the ending, though. It's a pretty Dickian (Dickish?) note in a story about what it means to be human to ask whether you can be absolutely sure if you qualify or not. Taking Scott's position on this into account, I'm interested in seeing how it gets addressed in the new movie.

Finally speaking some sense!

post #1018 of 1173
Replicants exist for dangerous work, and Deckard's is a dangerous job. Furthermore, framing him as a replicant takes away the treacly "this crapsack world is okay because free person suddenly realizes that slavery is wrong" aspect of the story, but replaces it with the tragedy of "this crapsack world is dystopic as fuck because slave unwittingly hunts his fellow slaves for his masters' convenience." You can prefer your wrong story for aesthetic reasons - and it's not my job to judge you, it's God's - but there's absolutely a narrative and thematic sense to it. YES THERE IS.
post #1019 of 1173

Slim just spoiled everything. Like... give a brother a century to read the book, why don't you. 

post #1020 of 1173
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it's really not just semantics. It's a fairy significant plot point, regardless of where you stand on Deckard being a human or replicant. They're artificially created, bioengineered humans. There's nothing robotic them, at least not in the film. They are comprised entirely of organic material.
post #1021 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reasor View Post

Replicants exist for dangerous work, and Deckard's is a dangerous job. Furthermore, framing him as a replicant takes away the treacly "this crapsack world is okay because free person suddenly realizes that slavery is wrong" aspect of the story, but replaces it with the tragedy of "this crapsack world is dystopic as fuck because slave unwittingly hunts his fellow slaves for his masters' convenience." You can prefer your wrong story for aesthetic reasons - and it's not my job to judge you, it's God's - but there's absolutely a narrative and thematic sense to it. YES THERE IS.

"Hey Bill!  We've got some dangerous replicants on the run.  What should we do?"

"Activate and send one of those fancy new models after em!"

 

"Wait, the ones that don't know they're replicants that have the strength of a normal man...?  What if he finds out he's a replicant?  That could blow up in our faces!  Plus, don't those new models have normal human strength?  Why not use a combat model?"

 

"STOP ASKING QUESTIONS DUDE"

post #1022 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevin Macken View Post

I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it's really not just semantics. It's a fairy significant plot point, regardless of where you stand on Deckard being a human or replicant. They're artificially created, bioengineered humans. There's nothing robotic them, at least not in the film. They are comprised entirely of organic material.

I found it interesting that Ford went out of his way to spell that out for folks in one of the recent Q&A's. His point was that while things like strength and lifespan may set them apart, the real difference is that they're just "people who can be owned." So, there ya go.
post #1023 of 1173
"Replicants are either a benefit or a hazard. If they're a benefit, it's not my problem."

Deckard doesn't sound like a guy talking about his own kind.
post #1024 of 1173

Fuck you guys, I can own Ryan Gosling anytime, anywhere. 

post #1025 of 1173

The Notebook Gosling.  Not Drive Gosling.

post #1026 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post
 

Are you a replican or a replicant?

 

post #1027 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

The Notebook Gosling.  Not Drive Gosling.

post #1028 of 1173

My favorite part of that mediocre movie.  So, so, so true.  

post #1029 of 1173
Freeman is talking sense and Reasor is on crazy pills. Did I stumble into the Mirror Universe or something?

Also, "read the novel" doesn't help anything. I've read the novel. It's fascinating and well-written but bears little relation to the movie beyond the basic premise and a couple key scenes. It's no guide to anything here.
post #1030 of 1173

I talk sense!  All the time!

post #1031 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnotaur3 View Post
 

Fuck you guys, I can own Ryan Gosling anytime, anywhere. 

 

post #1032 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post
 

I talk sense!  All the time!

 

For the moment, Mister Grady. Only for the moment. 

 

post #1033 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman View Post

I talk sense!  All the time!
Well, sometimes. You are one of the few to recognize TFA for the shoddy fanfic it is. It's the "Reasor on crazy pills" part that I'm really having trouble wrapping my head around. He seemed so sensible.
post #1034 of 1173

I KNOOOOOW!  He's the grounded, reasonable, nice, sane one!  He's never been crazy pants!  I'm worried about him.  

post #1035 of 1173
Only in Trump’s America! Amiright?
post #1036 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freeman 

"Activate and send one of those fancy new models after em!"

But hold on, it's possible that it's not that easy for them to get another replicant in an emergency, maybe those combat replicants are only off world, so they went with what they had.

Anyway, one thing I took away from seeing it on the weekend was that, despite what has been said, Deckard actually does quite a bit of detecting. He follows the clues fairly rationally, and they lead to who he suspects is Zhora. The film changes at that point, but he definitely runs down his leads in the beginning.

Also Harrisons chin scar was really distracting back in the day.
post #1037 of 1173

The replicant they just had to work with is the extremely advanced, very new and rare model that isn't widely known about?  That's not how that works.

post #1038 of 1173
Freeman, you're too hung up on what Deckard's abilities are or aren't. Caught up in "who beats who in a fight" character stats like you always are.

Nobody thinks that Tyrell, with the help of the police force, would insert a replicant into the ranks to see if it could be done?
post #1039 of 1173

Oh get fucking real.  We're not talking character stats.  We're talking about lifting a man above your head by only his wrist, or punching through steel.  Incredible feets of strength and the ability to essentially ignore pain.  None of these things Deckard ever shows even the slightest amount of.  If Deckard is a replicant then he's an ill made one.

post #1040 of 1173
Rachel and Priss don't show that either and they're both Replicants.

All Replicants are designed for specific purposes. So combat, industrial or assassination models like Roy, Leon and Zhora might be designed with increased strength in mind but a pleasure model like Priss isn't. And Rachel is designed to blend in with humans, same as Deckard if he were one. So it wouldn't make sense to design them with that strength in mind cause it would defeat the purpose of them blending in. To take that further, if Deckard is a Replicant he would be designed with investigative skills and markmanship in mind due to the skillset of a Blade Runner. Both of which he has in abundance.
post #1041 of 1173

His skills suck dick.  He assumes an obviously fake voice and makes that replicant suspicious of him for no good reason.

 

HUMAN!

post #1042 of 1173
Or maybe she's suspicious of him cause she's an assassin on the lamb and it's in her nature?

I could go either way on the question but I lean towards Replicant cause I like the subtext it provides as Reasor mentioned. Also, Deckard's eyes do that cat-like glowy thing all the other replicants' eyes do.
post #1043 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Codename View Post

Rachel and Priss don't show that either and they're both Replicants.

All Replicants are designed for specific purposes. So combat, industrial or assassination models like Roy, Leon and Zhora might be designed with increased strength in mind but a pleasure model like Priss isn't. And Rachel is designed to blend in with humans, same as Deckard if he were one. So it wouldn't make sense to design them with that strength in mind cause it would defeat the purpose of them blending in. To take that further, if Deckard is a Replicant he would be designed with investigative skills and markmanship in mind due to the skillset of a Blade Runner. Both of which he has in abundance.

Priss yanks the eggs out of the boiling water.

FWIW, Kevin J Anderson's K.W. Jeter's Blade Runner 2 novel (thanks Bart) retconned Priss to be a delusional human who THOUGHT she was a Replicant, and explained her abilities as all psychosomatic.
Edited by Analog Olmos - 10/2/17 at 5:31am
post #1044 of 1173
Now THAT'S dumb.
post #1045 of 1173
It's Kevin J. Anderson. Dumb is implied.
post #1046 of 1173

The three sequel books were by K.W. Jeter.

 

But yeah, that's a dumb idea.

post #1047 of 1173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

The three sequel books were by K.W. Jeter.

But yeah, that's a dumb idea.

Ahhh right. Thanks, it's been a while.
post #1048 of 1173
Priss kicks Deckard's ass at J.F.'s apartment -- even a "pleasure model" has tremendous strength and reflexes.

And if Deckard is a replicant, he'd have to be a brand-new, top-of-the-line model, since he has false memories, which they explicitly posit as a huge, unheard-of breakthrough. And yet he has only average strength, despite presumably being programmed as a "police model."

More holes than a honey comb. Just another example of late-career Scott's half-baked sci-fi theorizing (see also: Prometheus).
Edited by Curiosity Cosby - 10/2/17 at 6:30am
post #1049 of 1173

A movie about a replicant that doesn't know it's a replicant hunting other replicants would be fascinating.

 

A movie about a sociological experiment, concocted by a scientist and a police department, to see how a replicant that doesn't know it's a replicant reacts to hunting other replicants would also be fascinating.

 

But the cold, hard fact is that that's not Blade Runner's story. It's subtext, it's flavoring for the themes running through the movie, but it's not the mechanics of the plot.

 

It's seeds sprinkled into the background of the plot, like how Dana's constant eating and hickey on her neck in Poltergeist hint that she's pregnant, something that plays into the theme of the movie of secrets hidden under the surface of the suburbs. The difference is, of course, that Dana is just a side character and sits out most of the plot.

 

Deckard being a replicant fundamentally changes the point of the story, yet is something the movie doesn't actually engage with except on one occasion, when Rachel asks him if he's taken the Voight-Kampff test. Compare Blade Runner to Ex Machina or the Westworld television series. All three stories are about the fine line between humans and "robots," with Ex Machina presenting a human being that doubts their own humanity for a moment and Westworld presenting a human being that discovers they're actually a host. It's actually part of the plot in two of these three to explore how a human being would react to doubting their humanity and the fallout from that.

 

For Deckard to be a replicant means that we never get Deckard's feelings on the matter or the feelings of other replicants toward him or even the feelings of the humans that set Deckard in motion (Tyrell seems indifferent to Deckard, although he's passionate about Rachel not knowing she's a replicant, and Bryant's only feelings on anything seem to be arrogance and bloodlust). It's dramatically inert, with none of the characters reacting to what in any other story would be the cornerstone of the plot.

 

To see a story in which a Blade Runner turns out to be a replicant, struggles with it and struggles with how other replicants react to him, play the 1997 video game (in a few of its multiple endings, in some the main character is human). 

post #1050 of 1173

That story about Ford decking Gosling is the gift that keeps giving:

 

 

Glad to know Ford still got it!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Focused Film Discussion
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Focused Film Discussion › BLADE RUNNER 2 Pre Release