Blade Runner - some questions

[Chobohoya]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok here's the thing. PKD didn't write the sequel (which I haven't read). Jeter did. And if I recall, he's a hack, and you really shouldn't worry too much about his "answer."

[codewarrior]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought people who quoted Rounders got banned?

I make no judgement of the film or book, only presented factual answers to the original questions, other than expressing my opinion that based only on viewing the book, Dekard is not a replicant, IMO.

FTR, the book is a pretty good light read. Hardly a literary masterpiece on any scale. PKD's novel is brilliant.

[RydenStoompala]

1. Is Deckard a Replicant?

According to the book, maybe.

2. Is the Director's Cut better than the original cinema cut

No. The original was the director's cut until the director decided there was a good way to double the take by deleting the narration and extending scenes. I thought Ford did an excellent job of narration and the movie is better when it's tighter.

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

Yes. In Henry V, Kenneth Branaugh's reply to the French emissary. The "tennis balls" speech by Shakespeare. Other than that, no.

[Chobohoya]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing

[/ QUOTE ]

I thought people who quoted Rounders got banned?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch. fwiw, if I say that, it's not a rounders quote, it's just words.


[ QUOTE ]
I make no judgement of the film or book, only presented factual answers to the original questions, other than expressing my opinion that based only on viewing the book, Dekard is not a replicant, IMO.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with you on that.

[ QUOTE ]
FTR, the book is a pretty good light read. Hardly a literary masterpiece on any scale. PKD's novel is brilliant.

[/ QUOTE ]

agreed. Each time I read it, I like it more.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

wow...you opened up a can of worms. I've written articles in film journals on this movie...and my thesis was on it, as well.

Deckard IS a replicant. And instead of going into long-winded explanations and interpretations of scenes, I'll give you a much more solid reason: I asked Ridley Scott point-blank one day (I worked on Thelma & Louise and White Squall) and he said - no doubt about it - Deckard is a replicant.

If you really want reasons, maybe I'll post my thesis! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] But a nice visual metaphor for the replicants is, at one time or another, all of their eyes glow. In the scene between Deckard and Rachael in his apt., she asks him if Deckard will come after her. He says no, but someone will. He's out of foucs - but his eyes glow just a litttle.

Also, I've read the shooting script - yes, it had all that voiceover in it - and in the first version, Deckard even admits to being a replicant at the very end in his VO.

Another interesting thought - think of the first time we see Deckard - that could very well be his first moment of existence! Remember, the newer, experimental models - like Rachael - have been given "memories" - a history, to soften the blow of their existence. A way of coping with their emerging emotions. Think of Roy Batty and the others as children - but as children who have come into the world full-grown and with no knowledge of how to handle emotions. We learn how to handle certain situations...someone yells at us, we yell back - or shrug it off. Someone tries to harm us, we run away or fight back. Replicants have no way of knowing which response is the correct one - you learn that through experience.

So, they become psychotic.

As for Director's cut vs. original - that's a matter of preference....but I do prefer the DC...simply because there's no VO that tells you what to think. And the ending was crap - actually an outtake from Kubrick's The Shining!

Anyway...I'm always thrilled when someone finds the movie - it's my all-time favorite.

[fnord_too]

1. I think so. One line in the original version that always confused me was when the cops come to hassle him in the restricted zone. The dialog goes something like:

Cops - What are you doing here?
Ford - I'm working, what are you doing?
Cops - I'm arresting you, thats what I'm doing.
Ford - I'm <first name> Deckard, I'm tagged and monitored.
Cops - Ok, you check out, have a better one.

In the directors cut, also, the unicorn that Almos leaves outside of the appartment fits with the dream Ford has. He's saying that even his dreams are implanted. Also there is Ford's huge collection of old "family" photographs. ("Why are they so obsessed with photographs?")

2. I like the director's cut better. The hollywoodized version makes things too neat and happy for such a dark film.

3. The speech is good, but I don't know if its the best. Things like the one from network ("...I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it...") or any version of Henry V (the one with "we few, we happy few") both are pretty damn good off the top of my head.

[fnord_too]

Wow.

How long is your thesis?

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a good point....when I argued with Scott about whether or not Deckard is a replicant (I said he wasn't), Scott finally became exasperated and yeelled, "It's my [censored] movie! He's a replicant!" [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] Fair enough.

But what makes the movie so intriquing is the main theme - what makes someone human? Not being sure of Deckard's humanity is imperative to this, I think.

Look at the movie - all the so-called humans in the film act coldly, without empathy or sympathy: Gaff, Bryant, Tyrell, Deckard himself. Really, the only human who we like is JF Sebastian - but remember - he's just like the replicants metaphorically - "excellerated decrepitude."

But all the replicants revel in their emotion. THEY bond, they become a family. When a human dies, they usually do it off screen, with no mess (Holden, Tyrell - at least in the DC). Replicants die raging, they fight to stay in this world, to stay alive. And they are the only ones to show mercy.

Really, the replicants are more human than the humans. That's one of the main points.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow.

How long is your thesis?

[/ QUOTE ]

LOL...112 pages. trust me, only total film geeks who pour over every issue of Film Comment would be interested in reading it.

[Dominic]

[ QUOTE ]
1. I think so. One line in the original version that always confused me was when the cops come to hassle him in the restricted zone. The dialog goes something like:

Cops - What are you doing here?
Ford - I'm working, what are you doing?
Cops - I'm arresting you, thats what I'm doing.
Ford - I'm <first name> Deckard, I'm tagged and monitored.
Cops - Ok, you check out, have a better one.

In the directors cut, also, the unicorn that Almos leaves outside of the appartment fits with the dream Ford has. He's saying that even his dreams are implanted. Also there is Ford's huge collection of old "family" photographs. ("Why are they so obsessed with photographs?")

2. I like the director's cut better. The hollywoodized version makes things too neat and happy for such a dark film.

3. The speech is good, but I don't know if its the best. Things like the one from network ("...I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it...") or any version of Henry V (the one with "we few, we happy few") both are pretty damn good off the top of my head.

[/ QUOTE ]

One thing to point out here is that no one made Scott release a version he didn't want to. The studio did not "tack on" as happy ending. It was Scott's choice. It was only later that he realized he had been rushed and wanted to tinker some more with it.

Also, Ford never liked the VO - he thought the movie didn't need it. So when he went to record it, he did it in a mono-syllabic, unemotional voice, thinking they wouldn't be able to use it. Of course, that only made it better!

The photographs are important - it's a replicant's way of assuring itself 1) I have a family and/or people who care about me, and 2) I have a past.

I'm not sure that snippet of dialogue you quoted means anything other than Deckard is a licensed Blade Runner and he was letting the cop know. Remember, if Deckard is a replicant - he doesn't know it.