Blade Runner

mikoyan wrote:

But it's not the future....There are Pan Am logos and the old Bell logos on stuff...

It was the future of yesterday. Like how Alien takes place in the 2010s, when, lets face it, they aren't going to have space truckers in five years. And the Terminator apocalypse occurred in 1997. Really, all those movies were sort of the next generation of way off predictions of what the future would look like in thirty years, as opposed to the goofy 50s/60s-future or the bleak 40s-future.

Michael Barnes wrote:

Why haven't I posted here yet?

BLADE RUNNER is my all-time favorite film. Maybe not the greatest film ever made, or the most technically sound, but my favorite. I've probably seen it in excess of 100 times in its entirety and every version (including the "work print" that's on the new suitcase edition).

The VK-inspired suitcase edition is far and away the one to get. You get every version of the film (and it is actually worth having them all) and a fantastic 3 hour documentary, DANGEROUS DAYS that gets further into the nuts and bolts than most casual fans will care to bother with. A miniature spinner and a plastic (!?) origami unicorn make it a complete package.

When I was 6-7 years old I saw this thing about the making of BLADE RUNNER on TV. Even at that early age, I was totally into scifi. Other kids got into firetrucks, trains, and dumptrucks at that age but I liked scifi. I remember distinctly sitting in my grandmother's living room while they showed how they did the scene where Deckard is hanging off the building- glass panel, some paint, and matting. Growing up, it seemed like every time the picture was on broadcast TV I was deathly ill. Maybe watching the movie so many times with a high fever had an effect on me.

What is there to say about it all that hasn't been said? I still believe it is- bar none- the finest piece of production design that has ever been put on screen. The effects are absolutely timeless, unlike the CGI crap today that looks dated just five years on. The Vangelis score gives me chillbumps after hearing it countless times. Almost every line is iconic. But above all else, there is an atomsphere and a sense of time and place that very few movies could ever match. There's still a sense of futurity in every frame- something most science fiction films totally forget to bring to the table.

As far as comparing it to the novel- why bother. It's a great adaptation of the key themes and concepts of the book if not the to-the-letter events and characters. If you really read Dick, I can't see how it's even possible to look at BLADE RUNNER and not feel like it's totally a PKD _world_ brought to life.

I just recently watched Blade Runner for the first time and I kind of missed the point I think. Any implications of Harrison Ford's robot-ness totally went over my head, for starters, and although there were a few cool visuals (that guy's "toys" that were the ubiquitous 80s midgets, for instance), and the idea is a good one (putting a gritty film-noire detective story in a sci-fi setting), but I didn't like Harrison Fords narrative (don't know if that was added in to the version I saw) and the overall vision of the future seemed very dated. Not hte special effects, but the society they portrayed. Especially because there was so much of that 80's surety that the Japanese were going to take over the world, when they clearly didn't. Which brings into question Firefly's implication about the Chinese taking over the world, but I digress.

I didn't think it was bad, but it seemed to be a bit below my expectations.

PseudoIntellectual wrote:
I just recently watched Blade Runner for the first time and I kind of missed the point I think. Any implications of Harrison Ford's robot-ness totally went over my head, for starters, and although there were a few cool visuals (that guy's "toys" that were the ubiquitous 80s midgets, for instance), and the idea is a good one (putting a gritty film-noire detective story in a sci-fi setting), but I didn't like Harrison Fords narrative (don't know if that was added in to the version I saw) and the overall vision of the future seemed very dated. Not hte special effects, but the society they portrayed. Especially because there was so much of that 80's surety that the Japanese were going to take over the world, when they clearly didn't. Which brings into question Firefly's implication about the Chinese taking over the world, but I digress.

I didn't think it was bad, but it seemed to be a bit below my expectations.[/quote]
Voiceovers meant that you watched the original theatrical release. It's not bad but the voiceovers detract from the overall story. Sadly, they don't have a good way to project thoughts in a movie.

mikoyan wrote:

PseudoIntellectual wrote:
I just recently watched Blade Runner for the first time and I kind of missed the point I think. Any implications of Harrison Ford's robot-ness totally went over my head, for starters, and although there were a few cool visuals (that guy's "toys" that were the ubiquitous 80s midgets, for instance), and the idea is a good one (putting a gritty film-noire detective story in a sci-fi setting), but I didn't like Harrison Fords narrative (don't know if that was added in to the version I saw) and the overall vision of the future seemed very dated. Not hte special effects, but the society they portrayed. Especially because there was so much of that 80's surety that the Japanese were going to take over the world, when they clearly didn't. Which brings into question Firefly's implication about the Chinese taking over the world, but I digress.

I didn't think it was bad, but it seemed to be a bit below my expectations.

Voiceovers meant that you watched the original theatrical release. It's not bad but the voiceovers detract from the overall story. Sadly, they don't have a good way to project thoughts in a movie.[/quote]

I'm not against voice-overs in general, but Harrison Ford didn't do the voice-over well I thought. It was so loud and flat that it kind of distracted you from whatever moment was being narrated, and seemed out of place.

PseudoIntellectual wrote:

I'm not against voice-overs in general, but Harrison Ford didn't do the voice-over well I thought. It was so loud and flat that it kind of distracted you from whatever moment was being narrated, and seemed out of place.

I think that was one of the things that annoyed me about the original release but sometimes they did add to the story. If you liked the movie enough, check out either the Director's Cut or the Definitive Cut. Both take out the voiceovers.

Count me in the "Awesome - Love it!"-group! Haven't seen it a 100 (?!) times like Barnes (the equivalent for me would be "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly", I guess), but I still watched it a couple of times. Still have to get the ultimate box, containing everything and every version there is though.

By coincidence I just ordered t-shirts, which hardcore fans might also enjoy:




Source: www.lastexittonowhere.com

Oh My Fucking God ..... THOSE T-shirts .... must have .... need help.

Michael Barnes wrote:

As far as comparing it to the novel- why bother. It's a great adaptation of the key themes and concepts of the book if not the to-the-letter events and characters. If you really read Dick, I can't see how it's even possible to look at BLADE RUNNER and not feel like it's totally a PKD _world_ brought to life.

Very true. Bladerunner is probably more true to the spirit of P.K.Dick's writing than a more direct adaptation would have been. It needed to be trimmed for time and that was done well.

At the time it came out, Blade Runner was not well-received by audiences. They went in expecting a sci-fi Indiana Jones and came out feeling depressed and uneasy. But I loved it. For a very long time, I had a full-sized movie poster of Blade Runner on my living room wall in every place I lived, until my girlfriend laid down the no-poster law when we moved in together last year. However, if I spend the money to get the Blade Runner poster mounted and framed, it will meet her strict standards.

That said, I haven't watched Blade Runner in over a decade, because what lingers in my memories is a combination of awesome visuals and sluggish pacing. So the last version that I saw was the VHS Director's Cut. Around the time that version came out, there was an interesting article in Details magazine about Blade Runner. They did one of those things where they interview a bunch of people about something they all worked on (Blade Runner), and then present the remarks together as though they were all interviewed at once. I'll dig up that issue sometime this week and post some quotes here. One thing I remember is that Sean Young was apparently not a good enough actress to handle the role, so Harrison Ford got her to cry in a pivotal scene by saying something mean to her just before cameras started rolling on that take.

The folks really into Blade Runner should check out Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner . It's excellent.

(Uba, I tried to make that a referral link, let me know if it seems to work).

I like this movie, but haven't seen it that many times in any version. Most recently I watched the Final Cut. Maybe I missed something, but I don't get where they say that Deckard is a replicant. It seemed like after he was told about some replicants not knowing what they were he had the inevitable "in that case what if I'm one" dream like anyone with an imagination would. So where, in the Final Cut, does it say he was a replicant? Or is meant to be more ambiguous and or are you basing it on stuff that was in other versions?

He has the dream about a unicorn. He doesn't tell anyone about it. Gaff makes an origami unicorn and gives it to him, implying that he knows Deckard's dreams; paralleling Deckard knowing about Rachael's spider dream from her youth. QED.

After watching The Final Cut again recently, I still don't believe Dekkard is a replicant. The only "evidence" that he is seems to be based on him having a dream about a unicorn and later Gaff leaves an origami unicorn. However there seems to be a lot better evidence, based on facts of the setting, against him being a replicant.

* He is retired at the beginning. Replicants are shut off when they're retired.
* He doesn't like his job. Why would you program an android to not like its job?
* He is allowed to carry a gun. In a world where people are so terrified of letting replicants near them they have a death penalty for it. Yet this one is given free reign to run around shooting in crowded streets.
* He had a dream about a unicorn in a forest. Unicorns don't exist so it couldn't be based on a memory, programmed or not, of seeing one. Rachel had a memory of the spider not a dream.
* He would have to be at least as advanced as Rachel, probably more so to be left alone and armed, yet they let him do a job where he could easily be destroyed. Seems like a waste.
* His eyes never do the shine thing in the dark that all the replicant's eyes do.
* He shows emotional responses that none of the other replicant's do. I believe he would pass the test based on things he does in the movie.
* Its clear in fighting hand-to-hand that he isn't as strong or agile as the replicants.

Both Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer have confirmed that Dekkard was never supposed to be a replicant in the movie. Ridley Scott later added stuff in to imply that Dekkard is, but there is no actual proof he is (at least not in The Final Cut). In fact the logic of the movie, which is based originally on him not being a replicant, goes against what Scott implies as possible.

Alternate theories:
Gaff is a telepath and he makes origami based on people's thoughts.
Gaff makes them randomly and it was coincidence.
Gaff tells him a story about unicorns in the car and he later dreams about them.
Ridley Scott wanted to try and make the movie deeper by alluding to something that wasn't there.

If Deckard is a replicant Scott has completely neutered the film. Given that and Ford's statements that he asked Scott repeatedly during the filming if Deckard was a replicant (and consistently got the answer "no") I think that the whole Deckard/replicant thing is just Scott's a way to grind a little more money out of his back catalog.

Sag.

I thought the whole point was that Deckard wasn't sure if he was a replicant or not. This concept has a long history in science fiction. BSG, terminator (the new one seems to use it), and countless other stories, shows, etc.

Honestly I find the concept of not knowing what I am far more terrifying than actually just knowing I am a replicant/T-800/Cylon....