Blade Runner, am I crazy? (1 Viewer)

[Steve Christou]

And the big question remains - Do androids dream of electric sheep? The name of the original Philip K.Dick story, or do they just dream of unicorns?
Are replicants androids? Should androids even be capable of dreaming?

 

[Jack Briggs]

But this, too, is a topic for another thread really.

Seth, Michael--who wants to start that thread? It sounds like fun! Seriously. Start it on Thursday, while memories of this thread are still fresh. Or do I have to start the thread? Please advise.
JB
*looks at watch*

 

[Walter Kittel]

Well, I'm not sure that the question of how to define humanity is the centerpiece of ALL cyperpunk. ( Sorry for being a stickler. Change ALL to majority and I'll agree. )
Certainly man / machine integration is one of the more common mechanisms at work in cyberpunk SF ( in a variety of ways including electronic implantation, interfacing biological systems with computer systems, and virtual realities ). How these augmentations define and affect the characters of these stories is one of the more fertile areas of cyberpunk, but...
There are a variety of other themes at work in cyberpunk including new definitions of intelligence ( machine ), explorations of other social structures ( particularly corporate in the works of Gibson and to a lesser degree Sterling ), and considerations of the potential pathways available to mankind as technology develops.
You might argue that considerations of artificial intelligence implicitly define humanity, but I'm not sure that I completely agree with that interpretation; as some of the stories do not focus on the differences to define intelligence in and of itself.
BTW, I'm in the small story, great skeleton, heavily nuanced camp regarding Blade Runner.
- Walter.

 

[Quentin]

Well...that's not really what the book IS about. It's an entirely different monster than the film. But, I like them both in their own way...

 

[Seth Paxton]

Jack, you can start the SS bashing thread on Friday afternoon, just in time to have everyone pounce on you when Minority Report starts blowing people away (if we are to trust any of the reviews).
SS would be the modern Hitchcock had he not worked in the serious drama genre as well, and had stayed only in action/adventure (SF based as well). That is how clear, definate and well-crafted I find his direction.
Watching Black Hawk Down and thinking of Blade Runner it makes me wonder what Scott was doing in-between. Certainly not having the run that SS was.
Again, as I said and Chuck followed, I feel certain that SS was fully giving a compliment to Scott's work on BR, in the manner I already explained.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I can concede on that Walter, including your point on AIs when it doesn't really question whether it is human or not.

And of course BR has those other aspects at work too I think. Just look at the Tyrell Corp. and it's position in the world.

 

[Walter Kittel]

Hey Seth!
Yes, the Tyrell Corporation ( although not specifically described as being multi-national ) would work as a zaibatsu in Gibson's universe; certainly from the standpoints of size and societal influence. Additionally, the ties between law enforcement and a corporate entity in Blade Runner anticipate the theme of unchecked corporate political and economic power that is pervasive in Gibson's work.
- Walter.

 

[Ted Lee]

here's another pretty cool website that has some articles and spins on the movie...
http://www.br-insight.com/

 

[JonZ]

"I feel the same way. The visuals are astounding, but the story felt empty. After 5 viewings, I've given up trying to find more to the story."

Blade Runner is a visual story but so is 2001 A Space Odyssey(the greatest film ever made),Apocalypse Now(2nd greatest ever made),The Road Warrior - Does that mean theres no story there?

The visuals are only part of the film. Personally, I love a film that can tell a story without loads of dialogue that spell everything out to me, that allows me to work and discover what the point is.

I just read Philips Dicks book and it may be becuase Im such a BR fanatic, but the book doesnt compare to the movie IMHO (although I do like Dicks work).

The answers to BR arent easy, they require you to work and ponder what your seeing, but the payoff can only be compared to very few films I think.This film is a "experience" and Id give my left one to see it on the big screen.I think the scene where Deckard runs from Roy Batty and jumps off the roof and grabs Deckard from falling
is one of the greatest moments ever put to film.

I love love love this movie, and Im terrified of what theyre going to do to it for the big SE due next year.The Dir Cur is simply perfect. Id like to see the cut hospitol scene, but I dont want new FX added.

 

[Steve Clark]

And here people thought T2 introduced the concept of the warrior female. She was just our first PROTAGONIST warrior female

I thought that distinction belonged to Sigourney Weaver for her Oscar nominated female warrior role in Aliens!

 

[Bryan Tuck]

I really love this movie as well. I agree that it's not perfect, but I've just always found it fascinating, and as others have said, poetic.

And, as for the controversy over Deckard's origin:

To me, the strongest suggestion that Deckard is a replicant comes when Gaff leaves the miniature unicorn, telling Deckard that he knows what he was dreaming. This suggests that the vision was implanted, and Gaff knew about it, much in the same way that Deckard knew about Rachael's implanted memories.

At any rate, as with many of Scott's films, this is in the subtext, such as the suggestion in the director's cut of Legend...

...that Jack is actually an immortal.

As for Deckard, I know Scott recently confirmed the Deckard question, but I like how it is presented subtly in the film.

 

[Vlad D]

I love this movie.

I never picked up on this Deckard being a replicant thing.


I'll have to rewatch it.

Is it worth picking up the current DVD (saw it listed on Columbia House website - I still have to buy one more DVD) or should I wait for the SE?

 

[Iain Lambert]

Vlad,

If you'd asked me a year ago I'd have probably said wait, but we've been playing the 'Special Edition will be out soon' game for so long now I'd just give in and buy the normal one for the moment. Its such a great film, and the current edition is normally so cheap, that it seems churlish to deprive yourself for what could be a very long time still.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I thought that distinction belonged to Sigourney Weaver for her Oscar nominated female warrior role in Aliens!

Well, it's true that Weaver gave us a strong female lead. However, before the attack of the Alien she wasn't THE tough guy on board the ship. Like her job was not the bodyguard or something.

In Blade Runner Joanna Cassidy is built to be a fighting machine. What does Bryant say about her..."talk about beauty and the beast, she's both" or something like that.

The point being that OTHER PEOPLE in the diegetic world see the character as a central threat of physical violence, and they see that as normal.

In BR we know that Cassidy's character is not the only female fighting bot out there, she is part of a model line. And the other characters know this too.

Just like Linda Hamilton in T2 is not truly a fighting bodyguard type since she suprises everyone with how tough she has become. However, Linda did have one other thing that Sig did not...the audience WAS in on the fact that Linda was tough right from the start. So that part was a bit more in the cyberpunk realm, but T2 is not fully committed to being a cyberpunk film. It only borrows a few bits slightly - the future in T2 is closer to cyberpunk than anything else in the film.

 

[JasonWW]

I saw the Directors Cut and personally didn't care for it. I think you really need that ending narrative. Especially for a first time viewer who might not understand what's going on.
Is there any way to get a DVD of the theatrical release version? I've tried to find it and had no luck. Some one mentioned a Special Edition in the works. Is there a web site that gives more details on this? Please help me, BR is one of my Top 5 Movies and I don't like the Dir. Cut.

 

[Geoff_D]

IMO, both recognised versions of BR complement each other perfectly. The simple voice-over of the theatrical verison helps one to initially get immersed in Deckard's world and understand what he's feeling - important for BR virgins.

The 'director's cut', on the other hand, leaves it to us to decide what Deckard is feeling, but provides THAT unicorn dream sequence, making sense of the appearance of the little origami unicorn at the end of the movie from a subtextual standpoint - which we all know, right?

 

[Edwin-S]

THAT unicorn dream sequence, making sense of the appearance of the little origami unicorn at the end of the movie from a subtextual standpoint - which we all know, right?
------------------------------------------------------------

The appearance of the origami unicorn made sense even without the addition of that "red herring" scene.

 

[Todd Terwilliger]

I read Future Noir and I see all the signs that point to the Decker that Ridley wanted but I agree with Seth that the story holds more power if this weren't so.
Future Noir, by the way, is an excellent book for anybody interested in the story behind the realization of Blade Runner.

 

[Jack Briggs]

Jason: You cannot at present purchase a DVD copy of the 1982 theatrical cut with voiceover. It is rumored to be among the three versions of the film included in the forthcoming SE. JB

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Jack Briggs wrote:

Quote:

I think that was a general reaction at the time among much of the movie-going public (also kids then): "Empty thrills, bring 'em on!" The alienation you describe as contemporary among a youth audience was alive already then. The Spielberg/Lucas tandem had already wrought their dirty work---er, "magic" even by then. But I think that's nevertheless the mark of a "great" movie. You see it a number of times before you realize that certain details of look or dialog have some greater meaning that you're only seeing on the 10th or 15th viewing of the film. Every time I look at Aliens (the greatest movie ever of its, admittedly limited (space-war), genre) I learn something new that I hadn't realized the other 20 times I had seen it previously.
Regarding this film, I want to put in a word here for Douglas Trumbull's visual effects. While the rest of Hollywood, including Spielberg, was busy kissing up to George Lucas and ILM, Douglas Trumbull's company was occasionally getting the big-budget film to do and doing superior and phenomenal work---far superior to the Vistavision work of contemporary ILM projects. (Compare Trumbull's rush work on Star Trek: The Motion Picture with ILM's (as usual) overly brightly lit space visuals for Wrath of Khan. No comparison!!!) I might add, the stuff still looks so much better than a lot of today's CGI, as well. One of the great tragedies of Hollywood effects-making was Trumbull's exit from the business.