51

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

walther p99 wrote:
chrisisall wrote:
Jarvio wrote:

I saw 2049 today and thought it was excellent. I'm not gonna say it was better than the original because it wasn't, but that doesn't mean that this sequel was not excellent. It was very well done, and I am relieved that I liked it so much because I was afraid it would ruin the legacy of the excellent original. But thankfully, I'm into it.

I'm truly glad for those who love it- it's an awesomely well made sequel that never needed to be... but I just have too many problems with it being that the original is my favourite pure sci-fi of all time.
Some well made points from ProfJoeButcher over at MI6:

SPOILERS!

They retcon motivations into the first movie (Rachael was programmed as part of a villain's plot, Deckard's even more special than the events of the first film made him out to be) and give motivations to Gosling that are either the result of incredible coincidence or more "Chosen One"-style nonsense. That tone even nicks my appreciation of some of the design: Jared Leto's over-the-top abode was as insufferable as he was. Why would that room exist?

And why is the film 163 minutes long? I like long movies, but they need to justify their length. Watching K slowly approach that furnace thing, slowly open it, slowly take out the bag, slowly remove the bag's contents, and slowly check the date on the wooden horse that the audience already knew was there smacks of self-indulgence. There's no reason for that scene to be constructed that way. They could have made it twice as long, or half as long, and it would make no difference whatsoever. I don't feel that they're respecting the audience here.

And there are worse ways the film disrespects the audience, specifically, the audience's intelligence. Apart from very frequent references to "slaves" and "angels" spelling out the themes, and hamfisted discussion of souls, and being "born, not made", you have little annoyances. The one that irritated me the most was when K was looking at the DNA, and Joi (ugh) comments that humans are just made up of four things, but she's only made up of two. And then she explains, for the idiots, "ones and zeroes". Please, movie, give me a tiny bit of credit here. By the way, naming the protagonist "K" at all, ("Hey, you guys like Kafka? Look what we did here!")

Oh, and not long after Deckard explains that "Sometimes, in order to love someone, you have to be a stranger," Luv kills Joi! Groan!

Some of that may sound nitpicky, but it just underscores that disrespect for the audience. Less nitpicky would be to point out how obnoxious it is to leave an *obvious* red herring (K might be Deckard's son!) floating around for like an hour.

Other observations:

The film seems to take place in one of those rare dystopias with virtually no security whatsoever. Waltzing into the police station and murdering a lieutenant seems to be a trivial matter. For the two most hunted guys in the universe to waltz into the facility where the dream maker works seems pretty easy too.

Why does Wallace want replicants to reproduce? I mean, okay, there's the prestige of having accomplished that, but does he feel that his current method of producing millions of replicants just how he likes them is too fast and efficient? Is he tired of making money by selling replicants, and would prefer that millions of free ones just get produced?

Maybe it's just me, but Joi's AI seemed radically underdeveloped in comparison to that of K, and it's hard for me to really see that relationship making sense. And just the idea of selling a romantic partner that's completely non-physical, in a world with millions of replicants, seems like an odd thing to do generally.

"Well, K is hurt, so we'll just leave him over there and then go complete our evil master--oh ****! It's K!"

A lot of this flew past me as I was honestly not invested enough to care, but it just makes me more sure I will not revisit this movie past my one theatrical viewing.  ajb007/crap

The original Blade Runner is obviously one of my favorite films so of course I had sky high expectations for this but I left the cinema feeling a bit underwhelmed. One of the reasons why is because most of the film didn't truly feel like Blade Runner to me. Obviously in the sequel they have to expand the universe and the setting but once they left LA and went to the junkyard I thought of Mad Max and when he went to Vegas I thought of Fallout. I wish more time was spent on the rainy streets like the Scene when K meets Mariette.

I found it very reminiscent,  though I've not seen the original for maybe 5 years,  I did think that the city scenes looked older and less futuristic in 2049, I was pleased they made a feature of the rain in 2049,  it's a good film,  but is it a good sequel?  Possibly not.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

52

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

The_Commander wrote:
Napoleon Plural wrote:

I never liked Ford's cropped haircut. It makes him a right old moonface.

However, there is a bootleg copy of the film in which he has long hair for a lot of the scenes, there were two versions filmed apparently, one in which he looks more like Hans Solo.

This is one of those foaf-lore stories that isn't true.  Ford never shot any scenes with long hair, official or non-official.  There are screen test scenes of Dustin Hoffman in the role, but Ford insisted on the crew-cut as he didn't want to become stereo-typed as an actor in a hat - which is what Deckard was meant to be - a proper 'Dick Tracy' style investigator.  As part of the agreement to take on the role, Ford got the chopped hair before the cameras started rolling.
There's some stories that should be left and I believe that Blade Runner is one of them.  I'll doubtless go see the movie, but I am expecting to hate it.  I hope to be surprised.

Well, I have seen BR2049 now and it's the first film in a while that I'll be seeing twice at the pictures (as we older Brits call the cinema) - it's been playing around in my mind for the last few days and I need to see it in full again.
I think the sequel addresses one big issue in a way that nobody has ever thought about, or at least I've never seen it mentioned: is Deckard a replicant?
What is a replicant? An android, a synthetic human.  Our understanding of these descriptions back in 1982 probably filled our heads with thoughts of mechanical robots with a flesh and skin covering, a bit like a Terminator or synthetic like Bishop or Ash in the Alien films.  From watching BR2049 now, we understand that a replicant is essentially a lab-grown biological being which is capable of reproduction (whether intended or unintended).  The limited life span has been removed from the new models, presumably as owners didn't want to pay out every 4 years.  But as the reproduction capable and long-life examples are all old Nexus models, now that Eldon Tyrell is gone, nobody understands how this has come about - least of all Niander Wallace.  Is the reproduction a product of evolution, an accidental side-effect or something else?

So, what is a replicant? Effectively it's a grown human, treated as a slave by those left on earth.  So essentially, it doesn't matter if Deckard is a replicant or not.  There's no real difference apart from our perception of the term.

BR2049 is a very different film to the original, but it is an excellent film and I'm glad it was made and that I've experienced it.

1:Sf,  2:SP,  3:TSWLM, 4:CR, 5:OHMSS

53

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Whether he's a replicant matters more to the original film,  as replicants are not allowed on earth, if he was a replicant he could not have been trusted to be bladerunner.  I'm still unsure what to make of gosling being a "skinner".
What I've taken from the sequel is that Rachel was a very different replicant,  she had no termination date,  she believed she was human and as such I think tyrell gave her the ability to reproduce, and that secret went with tyrell.  It's only the final cut that introduces the possibility that Deckard could be a replicant.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

54

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Just re-watched the original after seeing 2049.

Still prefer the original, but I honestly like both, but honestly, they're kinda hard to compare.

The original is way more artsy and noir-esque and eerie. The sequel is more like a blockbuster, but not in the bad way.

Kind of feels like a similar situation to 2001 a space odyssey and it's much less artsy (but still good) sequel. But obviously not to as big an extent, as those 2 films are totally different.

1 - Avtak, 2 - Op, 3 - Ltk, 4 - Lald, 5 - Fyeo, 6 - Ohmss, 7 - Sf, 8 - Dn, 9 - Ge, 10 - Daf, 11 - Tmwtgg, 12 - Tswlm, 13 - Mr, 14 - Tld, 15 - Yolt, 16 - Sp, 17 - Gf, 18 - Frwl, 19 - Dad, 20 - Qos, 21 - Tnd, 22 - Twine, 23 - Tb, 24 - Cr

1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby

55

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Jarvio wrote:

Just re-watched the original after seeing 2049.

Still prefer the original, but I honestly like both, but honestly, they're kinda hard to compare.

The original is way more artsy and noir-esque and eerie. The sequel is more like a blockbuster, but not in the bad way.

Kind of feels like a similar situation to 2001 a space odyssey and it's much less artsy (but still good) sequel. But obviously not to as big an extent, as those 2 films are totally different.

Similar to my thoughts, 2049 is a great film, well acted,  well directed etc but possibly isn't a great sequel,  but is it meant for the die hard fans of the original or does it need to appeal also to the casual cinema goer

It was either that.....or the priesthood

56

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Jarvio wrote:

Just re-watched the original after seeing 2049.

Still prefer the original, but I honestly like both, but honestly, they're kinda hard to compare.

The original is way more artsy and noir-esque and eerie. The sequel is more like a blockbuster, but not in the bad way.

Kind of feels like a similar situation to 2001 a space odyssey and it's much less artsy (but still good) sequel. But obviously not to as big an extent, as those 2 films are totally different.

Yeah the originals aesthetic is so unique that even BR2049 couldn't replicate it perfectly. But a lot of that has to do with the use of CGI vs matte paintings and models in the original. Have any of you guys picked up the limited edition Johnnie walker directors cut?
https://s1.postimg.cc/75nfh08cln/JW2049.jpg

57

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Chriscoop wrote:

2049 is a great film, well acted,  well directed etc but possibly isn't a great sequel,  but is it meant for the die hard fans of the original or does it need to appeal also to the casual cinema goer

It's clearly meant for fans of the original. Someone brand new to it wouldn't know why they should care halfway through it...

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

58

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

chrisisall wrote:
Chriscoop wrote:

2049 is a great film, well acted,  well directed etc but possibly isn't a great sequel,  but is it meant for the die hard fans of the original or does it need to appeal also to the casual cinema goer

It's clearly meant for fans of the original. Someone brand new to it wouldn't know why they should care halfway through it...

What makes me wonder is that the original was hardly a huge box office hit,  granted it's appeal has grown since amd it's cult status is legendary but at the time I think it's fair to say it underperformed.  Do Hollywood studios really make cult films for die hard fans these days?

It was either that.....or the priesthood

59

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

walther p99 wrote:
Jarvio wrote:

Just re-watched the original after seeing 2049.

Still prefer the original, but I honestly like both, but honestly, they're kinda hard to compare.

The original is way more artsy and noir-esque and eerie. The sequel is more like a blockbuster, but not in the bad way.

Kind of feels like a similar situation to 2001 a space odyssey and it's much less artsy (but still good) sequel. But obviously not to as big an extent, as those 2 films are totally different.

Yeah the originals aesthetic is so unique that even BR2049 couldn't replicate it perfectly. But a lot of that has to do with the use of CGI vs matte paintings and models in the original. Have any of you guys picked up the limited edition Johnnie walker directors cut?
https://s1.postimg.cc/75nfh08cln/JW2049.jpg

ajb007/smile no but the use of it in 2049 and Deckard holding the bottle in Vegas wasn't lost on me.  Or the fact he said he had millions of bottles.  In his apartment in the original he had a fair few bottles there too.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

60

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Chriscoop wrote:

What makes me wonder is that the original was hardly a huge box office hit,  granted it's appeal has grown since amd it's cult status is legendary but at the time I think it's fair to say it underperformed.  Do Hollywood studios really make cult films for die hard fans these days?

It was pointed out to the suits how many different releases the original had and how revered it was in the sci-fi community, so I think they thought of it as a pre-sold, sure fire hit. But making a sequel so long after the original is always tricky, and a good portion of the fans of the original probably didn't even bother to see it. I almost didn't myself.... but I felt duty bound.

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

61

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Big Blade Runner fan.

Loved both movies, but indeed the first more than the second.

And yeah, Deckard is human to me. Wallace was just full of   Brexit . And so was Tyrell if you ask me. I believe Rachel did have an end date which may be why she died in childbirth. But hey, that's just me.  ajb007/lol

"Christ, I miss the Cold War."

62

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Chriscoop wrote:

Whether he's a replicant matters more to the original film,  as replicants are not allowed on earth, if he was a replicant he could not have been trusted to be bladerunner.  I'm still unsure what to make of gosling being a "skinner".
What I've taken from the sequel is that Rachel was a very different replicant,  she had no termination date,  she believed she was human and as such I think tyrell gave her the ability to reproduce, and that secret went with tyrell.  It's only the final cut that introduces the possibility that Deckard could be a replicant.

"More human than human is our goal here at the Tyrell Corporation" - and although you're right in saying that replicants on earth were declared illegal (at least in the theatrical cut), how many times have you heard the phrase 'do as I say, not do as I do'?  As we saw the origami unicorn in the original theatrical release, and saw Deckard's eyes do the trademark replicant glow too, I think that it was always intended that the main character should be a replicant.  Also, in the work print (which was the original version, pre-dating the theatrical version), the stuff about replicants being illegal on earth was absent.

I think that it's clear Scott always wanted Deckard to be regarded as a replicant, but the studio officials over-ruled this with the release of the theatrical release, with the happy ending from The Shining tacked on the end.

Later, after the poor reception of the sanctioned version, and when Scott was hot property, the studio bosses thought they could milk a bit more money from the movie by allowing the Director's Cut, and finally the Final Cut.  In these 2 latter releases, Scott was finally allowed to express what he'd wanted all along, to assert that Deckard was a replicant. 

But, in the end, with the central replicants at least, it doesn't matter, because they are basically one and the same as humans.

EDIT

Yes, before you say it, I know that Dick always insisted that the character was human and that the story (in Electric Sheep) is about the de-humanisation of people by their jobs and situations.  However Blade Runner isn't Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, it's at most, inspired by the book.

Last edited by The_Commander (18th Oct 2017 15:53)

1:Sf,  2:SP,  3:TSWLM, 4:CR, 5:OHMSS

63

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

The_Commander wrote:

Deckard's eyes do the trademark replicant glow too, I think that it was always intended that the main character should be a replicant.  Also, in the work print (which was the original version, pre-dating the theatrical version), the stuff about replicants being illegal on earth was absent.

It must have been a while since you saw the workprint, Commander...

http://www.patell.org/pictures/br_wkpt_dictionary.jpg

And Deckard clearly did not possess 'paraphysical capabilities.'  ajb007/biggrin

Last edited by chrisisall (18th Oct 2017 16:16)

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

64

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

The thing is though that,  other than Rachel,  replicants know they are replicants,  and Deckard can quite quickly spot them.  In his narrative he says he'd grown tired of killing,  and he displays far more human emotions and weaknesses than the replicants do. The nuances and irony of the story go further in that Deckard falls in love with a replicant, and that replicants are becoming more human than humans.  The paper unicorn is inexplicable, how can gaff possibly know Deckard dreamt of a unicorn?  When I was a kid and saw bladerunner for the first time ( I was only 7 when it came out)  I was watching Han solo,  and Han solo could not be a replicant,  maybe that childhood thought is hard for me to shift.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

65

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Not to pick on you, Chriscoop, but clarifications on your post are apt responses for some of the other posts, so here it goes...

Chriscoop wrote:

The thing is though that, other than Rachel, replicants know they are replicants

On the flip-side, Rachel's ignorance is evidence that other replicants can also be programmed to be "ignorant."  My theory is, as in Deckard's case if he is a replicant, the ignorance as designers theorize, help in his motivations in carrying out his special kind of work.

Chriscoop wrote:

...and Deckard can quite quickly spot them.

 
Actually, no, at least not in the case of smarter replicants like the combat model Roy Batty was, which was why Blade Runners need the Voigt-Kampff machine.  Maybe models like Leon were easier to spot.

Chriscoop wrote:

he displays far more human emotions and weaknesses than the replicants do. The nuances and irony of the story go further in that Deckard falls in love with a replicant, and that replicants are becoming more human than humans.

 
Perhaps the human emotions and weaknesses were programmed by the designers to better give special replicant models emotional stability, again, to better function in their special roles. 

Chriscoop wrote:

The paper unicorn is inexplicable, how can gaff possibly know Deckard dreamt of a unicorn?

Despite the disputes that Philip K. Dick and certain individuals on the production team deemed from the beginning that Deckard was a human, I think the fact that the unicorn scenes and the glowing eyes were even incorporated in the production design, the director already had that intention while filming.

Chriscoop wrote:

When I was a kid and saw bladerunner for the first time ( I was only 7 when it came out)  I was watching Han solo,  and Han solo could not be a replicant,  maybe that childhood thought is hard for me to shift.

I was in the same mind frame, it was almost a conceit or prejudice to think, "how could Deckard not be human," which could be likened to some people reacting today to someone who came out as gay.  So, to play devil's advocate, what's wrong with Deckard being a replicant?

"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....

66

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

superado wrote:

Not to pick on you, Chriscoop, but clarifications on your post are apt responses for some of the other posts, so here it goes...

Chriscoop wrote:

The thing is though that, other than Rachel, replicants know they are replicants

On the flip-side, Rachel's ignorance is evidence that other replicants can also be programmed to be "ignorant."  My theory is, as in Deckard's case if he is a replicant, the ignorance as designers theorize, help in his motivations in carrying out his special kind of work.

Chriscoop wrote:

...and Deckard can quite quickly spot them.

 
Actually, no, at least not in the case of smarter replicants like the combat model Roy Batty was, which was why Blade Runners need the Voigt-Kampff machine.  Maybe models like Leon were easier to spot.

Chriscoop wrote:

he displays far more human emotions and weaknesses than the replicants do. The nuances and irony of the story go further in that Deckard falls in love with a replicant, and that replicants are becoming more human than humans.

 
Perhaps the human emotions and weaknesses were programmed by the designers to better give special replicant models emotional stability, again, to better function in their special roles. 

Chriscoop wrote:

The paper unicorn is inexplicable, how can gaff possibly know Deckard dreamt of a unicorn?

Despite the disputes that Philip K. Dick and certain individuals on the production team deemed from the beginning that Deckard was a human, I think the fact that the unicorn scenes and the glowing eyes were even incorporated in the production design, the director already had that intention while filming.

Chriscoop wrote:

When I was a kid and saw bladerunner for the first time ( I was only 7 when it came out)  I was watching Han solo,  and Han solo could not be a replicant,  maybe that childhood thought is hard for me to shift.

I was in the same mind frame, it was almost a conceit or prejudice to think, "how could Deckard not be human," which could be likened to some people reacting today to someone who came out as gay.  So, to play devil's advocate, what's wrong with Deckard being a replicant?


There would be less to complain  about in 2049 with Deckard being a replicant,  but the problem with the original is that Harrison Ford played Deckard as a human,  he is notably different in many ways from all the replicants,  even Rachel who come accross almost childlike and naive even Roy does although he has a sinister undertone,  and maybe it's these differing (well played)  performances that mark the true difference.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

67

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Chriscoop wrote:

There would be less to complain  about in 2049 with Deckard being a replicant,  but the problem with the original is that Harrison Ford played Deckard as a human,  he is notably different in many ways from all the replicants,  even Rachel who come accross almost childlike and naive even Roy does although he has a sinister undertone,  and maybe it's these differing (well played)  performances that mark the true difference.

I think that was the novelty of the new movie, which pretty much mirrors development and innovation in the real world in which sometimes convention is bucked by a radical approach...in this case, use self-aware replicants for Blade Runners.  The interesting thing is, that the new batch of replicants that include K have a new innovation, which is they're (more) obedient, yet K exercises free will through his against-orders investigation because he has a vested interest.  So, it's a slightly different take on the first movie's original theme of inequality.

"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....

68

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

BTW, here's my personal homage to Blade Runner in 1/6th scale:

https://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5740/30857077011_a501092fe7_b.jpghttps://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5644/22766534158_8279038ca8_b.jpg

https://c7.staticflickr.com/6/5330/22766533398_bfd665f7b7_b.jpghttps://c4.staticflickr.com/6/5469/30857074971_39894d3046_b.jpg

"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....

69

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

That's brilliant superado  ajb007/martini
One thing that always sticks in my mind which goes against Deckard as a replicant is his narrative at the beginning of the film,  particularly how he'd had enough of killing.  I don't think a replicant would feel this empathy,  empathy is what most psychopaths lack and separates humans from most animals.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

70

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

In the original, at the end of the final cut, Deckard sees the unicorn, hears the "too bad she won't live but then again who does" voice, and then Deckard himself kinda nods - so I always saw this as evidence that Deckard KNOWS he is a replicant (if he even is one)

1 - Avtak, 2 - Op, 3 - Ltk, 4 - Lald, 5 - Fyeo, 6 - Ohmss, 7 - Sf, 8 - Dn, 9 - Ge, 10 - Daf, 11 - Tmwtgg, 12 - Tswlm, 13 - Mr, 14 - Tld, 15 - Yolt, 16 - Sp, 17 - Gf, 18 - Frwl, 19 - Dad, 20 - Qos, 21 - Tnd, 22 - Twine, 23 - Tb, 24 - Cr

1 - Moore, 2 - Dalton, 3 - Craig, 4 - Connery, 5 - Brosnan, 6 - Lazenby

71

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

Jarvio wrote:

In the original, at the end of the final cut, Deckard sees the unicorn, hears the "too bad she won't live but then again who does" voice, and then Deckard himself kinda nods - so I always saw this as evidence that Deckard KNOWS he is a replicant (if he even is one)

That nod was indeed very telling, and it seems it was not a simple throwaway action that Ridley Scott made sure was included in that scene with that important implication.

Chriscoop wrote:

That's brilliant superado  ajb007/martini
One thing that always sticks in my mind which goes against Deckard as a replicant is his narrative at the beginning of the film,  particularly how he'd had enough of killing.  I don't think a replicant would feel this empathy,  empathy is what most psychopaths lack and separates humans from most animals.

I think that further adds to the irony, if he is a replicant, that his programming includes empathy to theoretically make him optimally effective in his highly specialized function, to hunt those hardest to hunt.  The crux of replicant technology at that particular point of their development (2019) was emotional stability.  Rachel was revealed to be Tyrell Corporations most developmentally advanced model (unbeknownst to the observer, Deckard, also an advanced replicant) and she displayed utter empathy and vulnerability.  A further irony is how Batty, the cognitively obsolete replicant ultimately discovers empathy in his final moment of life, exceeding that of Deckard’s and the “superior” humans.

"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....

72

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

It makes thematic sense to me for Deckard to be human. Since one of the primary themes in the novel and film is "what it means to be human?". It's hard to make that definition if you don't have a control case of someone who is at least human in the biological sense. As I said before the whole ending makes more sense with Deckard as a human. There's also the matter of lifespan. We're told in the original Blade Runner that as of 2019 the latest most advanced Nexus 6's only have a 4 year lifespan. And Deckard is established as a veteran Blade Runner. If he was a experimental nexus 7 like Rachael presumably was then why did he barely survive against the nexus 6? Even in BR2049 his actions are decidedly human. Of course the suspected response is "unicorn" but even then, how the character is portrayed by Harrison Ford in both films I never viewed him as a replicant at all.

73

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

walther p99 wrote:

It makes thematic sense to me for Deckard to be human. Since one of the primary themes in the novel and film is "what it means to be human?". It's hard to make that definition if you don't have a control case of someone who is at least human in the biological sense. As I said before the whole ending makes more sense with Deckard as a human. There's also the matter of lifespan. We're told in the original Blade Runner that as of 2019 the latest most advanced Nexus 6's only have a 4 year lifespan. And Deckard is established as a veteran Blade Runner. If he was a experimental nexus 7 like Rachael presumably was then why did he barely survive against the nexus 6? Even in BR2049 his actions are decidedly human. Of course the suspected response is "unicorn" but even then, how the character is portrayed by Harrison Ford in both films I never viewed him as a replicant at all.

That's because Harrison was adamant Deckard was a human and played him that way,  all the other actors playing replicants in the original are markedly different in all their attributes.

It was either that.....or the priesthood

74

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

superado wrote:

Despite the disputes that Philip K. Dick and certain individuals on the production team deemed from the beginning that Deckard was a human, I think the fact that the unicorn scenes and the glowing eyes were even incorporated in the production design, the director already had that intention while filming.

The unicorn footage never appeared in the workprint. So my take that Gaff's paper unicorn was merely a comment that Deckard's life with Rachael was a fantasy has some weight, I think. The glowing eye bit was to make us wonder if Deck was a replicant, not absolutely state that he was. This ambiguity was brilliant, and Scott himself ruined it by retconning with that unicorn test footage from Legend that he rather clumsily inserted during the piano scene. The Final Cut is, in my mind, the Final Straw cut.  ajb007/biggrin

Dalton & Connery rule. Brozz was cool. Craig is too.
#1.TLD/LTK 2.TND 3.QOS 4.DN 5.GF/GE 6.SP 7.FRWL 8.TB/TMWTGG 9.TWINE 10.YOLT

75

Re: any Blade Runner fans here?

To avoid multiple quotes...  ajb007/lol

  • The 4-year life span was not a given production limitation, but rather a control mechanism engineered in.

  • The novel (which audio version I'm in the middle of listening to) intentionally characterized the replicants as inhuman in attitude, per the ultimate tome of the original movie's development and production, "Future Noir" by Paul Sammon.  However, the movie was never meant to be a point-for-point adaptation of the novel particularly in terms of characterization, theme, etc.  In fact, the state of population that had been thinned out due to environmental issues in the novel, is more closely depicted in 2049, vs. the burgeoning population depicted in 2019.

  • It is a hotly disputed fact that Ridley Scott creatively high-jacked the project, hence his supposed intent of Deckard being a replicant from the get-go; so while editing can literally change the entire direction of a movie, whichever conclusion one prefers is legitimate depending on how one weighs the creative authority of the various creative personalities as well as the studio's.  What's interesting with 2049 is that whether Deckard is a replicant is not conclusive and arguments for and against are both present and strong, though it is not ultimately material to the plot.

"...the purposeful slant of his striding figure looked dangerous, as if he was making quickly for something bad that was happening further down the street." -SMERSH on 007 dossier photo, Ch. 6 FRWL.....