Blade Runner - some questions

[diebitter]

Blade Runner - we've all seen it, and most people like it (and those that don't usually hate it and think it's boring - I respect that)

Three questions I'd like to ask for OOT comment

1. Is Deckard a Replicant?
2. Is the Director's Cut better than the original cinema cut
3. Is there any better speech in cinema than Roy Batty's 'Ive seen things...'

1 - I think so, he's cold and aloof, and I think his actions and dreams imply something implanted
2 - I prefer the original. I think it wraps it all much more nicely, but I get the impression most people prefer the Director's Cut (or whatever you want to call the current DVD version)
3 - Nope

So what do you think?

[whiskeytown]

great movie - a lot of your questions can be answered in the IMDB trivia section.

1. - Harrison Ford insists that he was not a replicant, but Ridley Scott (the director) says he was - this is a major point of contention - but there is another trivia point that is of interest -

At some point of the movie, each replicant has a red brightness in their eyes (Rachael in Deckard's home, Pris in Sebastian's). Deckard also has the shining in his eyes while talking to Rachael in his house.

I believe Phillip K Dick's novel implied he was as well, but I've never read the original story it was based on -

2. - I feel the directors cut is better - that narration of the oringinal sucked - when in doubt, always go with the director over studio exec's -

3. - another trivia point - Rutger Hauer (Roy Batty) improvised the "Tears in the rain" bit of his final speech.

RB

[ChipWrecked]

[ QUOTE ]


2. - I feel the directors cut is better - that narration of the oringinal sucked



[/ QUOTE ]

[diebitter]

Yeah, lots of people hate it, but I like it myself. I think it's a bit like which James Bond you see first tends to make you prefer that one, I saw the original so many times before this new cut did the rounds, the new one just seems to be a step down to me...

[Blarg]

Yes, he's a replicant. Yes, it'a a great and very moving speech, but I don't know about it being the best in movies. I still think of that lost in time like tears in rain phrase sometimes. And I like both cuts.

[imported_The Vibesman]

I've never read the Dick story, but I understand the implication in that is that Deckard is a replicant.

I also like both cuts. I do like the fact that the one without narration leaves the ending a bit more ambiguous. As a huge fan of noir, I enjoy the narration also.

I posted Batty's speech in the "favorite speeches" thread yesterday, because I think it's at least one of the best ever.

[diebitter]

I agree with Vibesman. I might have misrepresented myself in the OP, I do like both, but Vibesman summed it up for me perfectly.

And it was his post yesterday that got me thinking about it...

[Chobohoya]

You all seriously need to read the book, it's fantastic. As for Deckard being a replicant, you could argue it either way, but he's not one. Roy Batty's speech in the movie is awesome, purely on its own terms and also because it is the quintessential 80's sci-fi Romantic vision.

I haven't read the book in a while, but IIRC, that particular outlook which permeates the movie is one of the key differences between the two versions.

Also, I don't know how much it really matters whether Deckard is ACTUALLY a replicant. I think the point is more the get you thinking about what makes us "people" and what do replicants really lack of whatever special qualifier you come up with.

[Chobohoya]

[ QUOTE ]


1. - Harrison Ford insists that he was not a replicant, but Ridley Scott (the director) says he was - this is a major point of contention - but there is another trivia point that is of interest -

At some point of the movie, each replicant has a red brightness in their eyes (Rachael in Deckard's home, Pris in Sebastian's). Deckard also has the shining in his eyes while talking to Rachael in his house.


[/ QUOTE ]

That's one of the reasons the movie is so great. Deckard definitely doesn't think he is a replicant. Ford's performance reflects that. However, just because you believe something with all your heart doesn't mean it's true...

[ QUOTE ]
I believe Phillip K Dick's novel implied he was as well, but I've never read the original story it was based on -

[/ QUOTE ]

There is one section in particular during which the "is Deckard a replicant" mind-[censored] is really laid on pretty thick. The first time I read it I just sat there for about 20 minutes after I finished the chapter. When my fiancee asked what was going on, I said "I don't know."

[codewarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
1. Is Deckard a Replicant?

[/ QUOTE ]

IMO, no - it's a mind game, based soley on viewing the film. The book(s) are a different story. This question is at the heart of the story, and the sequel (book) goes a long way in answering it. I won't tell you the answer.

[ QUOTE ]
Is the Director's Cut better than the original cinema cut

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it is not. Ford's narration in the original gave the film a noir feel that was critical to the presentation of the story, again, IMO. I also thought it was part of the charm of the film. The DC is good on its own, but it's almost two completely different feelings you get watching the two versions. I prefer the original.

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any better speech in cinema than Roy Batty's 'Ive seen things...'

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, but it is very, very close. Some of Brando's from "Apocalypse" come to mind.