The Librarian
Banned
Does Deckard practically rape Rachel in all five versions? "I want to leave." "NO!"
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blade Runner: 30 Years Later
- Thread starter PhoncipleBone
- Start date
- Status
anonymous_abc
Member
AHA-Lambda
Member
yeah, umm...sorry guys but, this.
Glad it wasn't just me that thought that :lol
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Don't be stupid. It's not rape when Vangelis is playing. It's classy.
phosphor112
Banned
For some reason Deus Ex and Blade Runner are synonymous in my head... Granted they are both in the future...but... not many similarities beyond that.
But yes, time for another watch.
But yes, time for another watch.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Final Cut
A Pretty Panda
fuckin' called it, man
Never seen this before but will in a week or so for a film class. Have to read the novel first though.
Nappuccino
Member
and Director's Cut. The differences are subtle, but I prefer the Director's Cut.
Yes and no. In that moment, he has as much contempt for Rachel and himself for loving her as he does fondness. It's a subtle moment. As Sculli points out:
It absolutely needs that music to assert the tone. Or perhaps to juxtapose against the action to make it even weirder. There's so much under the surface there that you can read from it.
Final Cut. Looks the best, has all the continuity and visual errors removed, a fully restored dream sequence (you'll know when you see it) and the digital re-composition of optical effects.
More importantly, it has the Super Special Ridley Scott Stamp of This Is What I Wanted All Along, You Cunts on the tin.
After that you can investigate the other cuts.
But start with the Final Cut.
The Librarian
Banned
Don't weasel around it!
Im going to watch the directors cut on the weekend out of curiosity. It doesn't include the ending in Final Cut, right? Where Deckard picks up the unicorn from the floor. I always liked that scene, I know to many it means Deckard is replicant but I feel it paints a much bigger picture about future society.
In the beginning we see the vast city and someone's eye looking over it, translated it's basically 'The all seeing eye or the eye of Horus', saying that privacy in the future is the thing of the past. This is not mention in the rest of the story and thought to be not important because the film deals with what it mean to be human.
Now when the film ends we see that Gaff is aware about what Deckard dreams about. It's a connection to the opening of the film with the same meaning, 'No privacy'. It could mean that bigger things are afoot and that the goverment/or corporations have more power than they lead on.
Im glad that's only hinted and never gone into further, of course if Ridley does plan on doing a sequel this could be the direction he goes but honestly I feel too much exposure is not good. That's why I love Blade Runner throughout, it doesn't explain itself and lets imagery and music convey most.
In the beginning we see the vast city and someone's eye looking over it, translated it's basically 'The all seeing eye or the eye of Horus', saying that privacy in the future is the thing of the past. This is not mention in the rest of the story and thought to be not important because the film deals with what it mean to be human.
Now when the film ends we see that Gaff is aware about what Deckard dreams about. It's a connection to the opening of the film with the same meaning, 'No privacy'. It could mean that bigger things are afoot and that the goverment/or corporations have more power than they lead on.
Im glad that's only hinted and never gone into further, of course if Ridley does plan on doing a sequel this could be the direction he goes but honestly I feel too much exposure is not good. That's why I love Blade Runner throughout, it doesn't explain itself and lets imagery and music convey most.
That's in all cuts of the film, I believe, including the Director's Cut. In the theatrical and workprint, there's no unicorn dream sequence, so the meaning changes from "I know your thought patterns therefore you are a replicant" to just "I was in your apartment, I could have killed Rachel".
Yeah, the big brother/megacorporation is a good aspect to take from that. It's could also be about empathy - the Voigt Kampf test, which focuses on the eye, is all about reactions of empathy in the subject. Or it might be a mirror of the audience's own eyes as they stare across this awe-inspiring Hades Landscape. Blade Runner excels in images that can have many different meanings, both as alternative interpretations or simulatneous interpretations.
Five people can take five conflicting meanings from a moment, or one person can take five harmonious meanings from it.
anonymous_abc
Member
well I watched the final cut on friday, as always a very enjoyable film 
I just love the art direction and the whole feel of the film.
but right at the begining when it says LA 2019 (or something to that effect) I was like, sadly no, not going to happen in 7 years
found
I just love the art direction and the whole feel of the film.
but right at the begining when it says LA 2019 (or something to that effect) I was like, sadly no, not going to happen in 7 years
found
Sadly? It's a horrific vision of the future. Be glad it isn't happening!but right at the begining when it says LA 2019 (or something to that effect) I was like, sadly no, not going to happen in 7 years
But what surprises me more is exactly how much of Blade Runner has happened. Computer photo manipulation. Video telephone calls. Animal cloning. Robotics. Everything about Blade Runner's world was designed with a certain intelligence. Details like the phone card Deckard uses to call Rachel were meticulously designed from a "how would this really work?" viewpoint, rather than what usually happens in sci-fi which is "wouldn't it be cool if?" (for a more recent example, see that Wired article from last week about what technologies won't be commonly used in ten years) It didn't make the shooting script, but even the Police Esper computer network sounds a lot like an intranet.
And today, of course, we can see how it's a vision of the future through the eyes of the past. Funny looking old computers, CRT monitors, flying cars, but I think that only adds to its visual appeal. It feels both old and new all at the same time.
Totally agree, the style and design of the film has always reminded me of the steampunk aesthetic in the sense that it's fundamentally old/aged technology being used for a futuristic purpose.
It helps a lot that they're actually physical objects being interacted with by the actors and not a green screen effect added in later.
Watched this again the other night. Every watch knocks it up a couple of places, on my all time favourites list. So good.
One thing I'm confused about though. Someone may be able to clear it up. Howcome Holden tests the employees of the tyrell corporation, when they know what the escaped replicants look like?
One thing I'm confused about though. Someone may be able to clear it up. Howcome Holden tests the employees of the tyrell corporation, when they know what the escaped replicants look like?
You know, I never thought about that. I can only presume they didn't have the intel at that point in time.
I was disappointed with this film in a strange way: I loved the look, atmosphere, pacing, cast and premise, but the movie wasn't meaty enough for me. I wanted to see more of this world, I wanted to spend more time with the characters - basically it felt a bit too short, even insubstantial.
I saw the 116 minute director's cut, but I felt given the way the world and atmosphere had been built up, it could do with more... plot. For a movie so well made, I wanted a greater scope, as it could certainly handle a 150+ minute running time.
Note: I am partial to long books and movies, unless the premise is a simple idea that can only stretch so far. Taken, at 90 minutes, was the appropriate length. Memento was perfectly formed IMO in 113 minutes. But Minority Report - one of my favourite sci-fi films, also based on a Philip K Dick story - took 145 minutes, and I felt that gave it the room to be nicely fleshed out.
I saw the 116 minute director's cut, but I felt given the way the world and atmosphere had been built up, it could do with more... plot. For a movie so well made, I wanted a greater scope, as it could certainly handle a 150+ minute running time.
Note: I am partial to long books and movies, unless the premise is a simple idea that can only stretch so far. Taken, at 90 minutes, was the appropriate length. Memento was perfectly formed IMO in 113 minutes. But Minority Report - one of my favourite sci-fi films, also based on a Philip K Dick story - took 145 minutes, and I felt that gave it the room to be nicely fleshed out.
Al right, I just watched this film again. It's strange, every time I watch this I leave somewhat unsatisfied only to get an extreme urge to watch it again a couple of years later. Anyway, this time it resonated much better with me than it usually does. Maybe it was because I watched it alone for the first time.
A couple of questions:
Also, the product placements are really disgusting. If Scott wanted to make a point about ads really being in your face in the future too he easily could have done that with fictive companies.
Edit: Added another question.
A couple of questions:
How come Deckard has no choice but to accept the mission to hunt down the replicants?
Why does Roy kill Dr. Tyrell? It's not his fault Roy has a fixed lifespan, is it? To me that just makes Roy a homicidal maniac. I can sort of see why he has to kill Sebastian after having killed Tyrell though.
Why does Roy run around in his boxers in the end?
Why does Roy drive a nail through his hand?
Why does Roy hold a white pigeon in his hand?
From where does Roy get said pigeon?
Why does Roy kill Dr. Tyrell? It's not his fault Roy has a fixed lifespan, is it? To me that just makes Roy a homicidal maniac. I can sort of see why he has to kill Sebastian after having killed Tyrell though.
Why does Roy run around in his boxers in the end?
Why does Roy drive a nail through his hand?
Why does Roy hold a white pigeon in his hand?
From where does Roy get said pigeon?
Also, the product placements are really disgusting. If Scott wanted to make a point about ads really being in your face in the future too he easily could have done that with fictive companies.
Edit: Added another question.
Forsaken82
Member
In regards to your first spoiler question, I am not sure if it is because it was his fault, but considering the fact that he is essentially in desperation mode, and Tyrell can't exactly help...
As for product placement, it may be in your face, but in my opinion, thats how it is in major cities now a days.
Forsaken82
Member
Now knowing this thread exists... I have to ask (and maybe its already been asked) but is it true that the movie Soldier (yeah that Kurt Russel turd) is based in the same universe?
distantmantra
Member
A few of these are mostly vague without any (to my knowledge) specific evidence, so I'm sort of guessing on a few of them based on what the film gives us.
1) I haven't seen the movie in a while, but I don't think we're ever given a specific reason. I just remember Deckard saying to Bryant after he's brought into the station "I was quit when I came in here, I'm quit now". To which Bryant responds "Stop! You know the score, pal. You're not cop, you're little people!"
Deckard then asks "No choice, huh?" and then Bryant smiles at him and says "No choice". I've just always assumed there was something from Deckard's past tying him to Bryant. Maybe he somehow slipped up before when he was on the force and so Bryant is essentially blackmailing him. His smile to Deckard before he says "no choice" implies something insidious. Or it could be the the bit about if you're a cop you're little people, meaning he's simply gonna get roughed up, or maybe worse.
2) Tyrell is the head of the corporation that makes the replicants, his "father", so he's blaming Tyrell as the reason for his premature death. I'm sure if the Tyrell Corporation had been fully explored in the movie, there would have been some kind of group of designers creating the replicants, but Batty probably wouldn't have been interested in that. As I said, he's just looking for his literal "father", the man at the top.
3) Good question. I have no idea :lol. He knows he's dying, maybe he wants to feel the rain and the cold one last time without the massive coat he has on earlier.
4) Right before he drives the nail through his hand, you see it clenched up almost into a fist. I've always took this as an effect of the end of his life span. His body shutting down. When he sees his hand doing this he yells "Not yet!" and looks scared. He grabs it, even bites it, and then finally puts the nail through it. Maybe the stimulation from the pain gives his hand a jolt and keeps it functional for a bit longer.
I've also seen lots of talk about this being symbolism for Batty as a Christ-like figure. "Modeled in mankind's image, dying for our sins." but this is, as far as I know, only fan speculation, so take that for what you will.
5) Just symbolism really. Representing life and Batty's soul flying to freedom, and symbolizing Batty literally holding onto life. It was actually Rutger Hauer's idea if I'm remembering correctly.
I've also always thought it was indicative of Batty's transformation right before his death. He's meant to be the "bad guy" for most of the film, seen as a destructive force easily capable of murder. But here he's gently supporting the dove, able to hold it without hurting it despite it's fragility (saving Deckard also fits into this idea as well).
6) As for where he gets it, sort of like the boxers, I have no clue. He's meant to be a freak of nature physically, maybe he was able to snatch it from one of the rooftops at the end there because of superhuman reflexes or something. A bit of a stretch here lmao, I don't believe it ever shows where he picks the dove up.
Deckard then asks "No choice, huh?" and then Bryant smiles at him and says "No choice". I've just always assumed there was something from Deckard's past tying him to Bryant. Maybe he somehow slipped up before when he was on the force and so Bryant is essentially blackmailing him. His smile to Deckard before he says "no choice" implies something insidious. Or it could be the the bit about if you're a cop you're little people, meaning he's simply gonna get roughed up, or maybe worse.
2) Tyrell is the head of the corporation that makes the replicants, his "father", so he's blaming Tyrell as the reason for his premature death. I'm sure if the Tyrell Corporation had been fully explored in the movie, there would have been some kind of group of designers creating the replicants, but Batty probably wouldn't have been interested in that. As I said, he's just looking for his literal "father", the man at the top.
3) Good question. I have no idea :lol. He knows he's dying, maybe he wants to feel the rain and the cold one last time without the massive coat he has on earlier.
4) Right before he drives the nail through his hand, you see it clenched up almost into a fist. I've always took this as an effect of the end of his life span. His body shutting down. When he sees his hand doing this he yells "Not yet!" and looks scared. He grabs it, even bites it, and then finally puts the nail through it. Maybe the stimulation from the pain gives his hand a jolt and keeps it functional for a bit longer.
I've also seen lots of talk about this being symbolism for Batty as a Christ-like figure. "Modeled in mankind's image, dying for our sins." but this is, as far as I know, only fan speculation, so take that for what you will.
5) Just symbolism really. Representing life and Batty's soul flying to freedom, and symbolizing Batty literally holding onto life. It was actually Rutger Hauer's idea if I'm remembering correctly.
I've also always thought it was indicative of Batty's transformation right before his death. He's meant to be the "bad guy" for most of the film, seen as a destructive force easily capable of murder. But here he's gently supporting the dove, able to hold it without hurting it despite it's fragility (saving Deckard also fits into this idea as well).
6) As for where he gets it, sort of like the boxers, I have no clue. He's meant to be a freak of nature physically, maybe he was able to snatch it from one of the rooftops at the end there because of superhuman reflexes or something. A bit of a stretch here lmao, I don't believe it ever shows where he picks the dove up.
Never really thought about the product placement stuff. It just feels like a part of the world so it never bothered me. Considering it's Los Angeles and not a fictional city, I think the real brands make sense, but that's just me.
Yeah, I that's pretty much what I got out of it too. Just wondered if it was explicitly explained somewhere.
Sure, but I still don't see why Tyrell is to blame. If anything Tyrell seems to have attempted to bypass the lifespan limitation but failed (they discuss this just prior to Roy killing him). Which begs the question of who put the limitation in place... I don't know. Maybe I'm getting confused here...
Yeah, that was basically what I was thinking, that he short circuits his hand to stop it from spasming or something.
The Jesus symbolism is kinda thought-worthy! I'll have to look out for stuff to support that when I watch the film the next time!
Ah, yes of course. Can't help but to feel that it feels out of place though.
Anyway, thanks for your answers!
Liquidsnake
Banned
One of the top 10 greatest films ever made.
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
This is one of those weird phenomenons I've had with some movies. The first time I watched it I really didn't think much of it. I don't know if it was because I wasn't in the mood to watch it or what.. but I was very indifferent to what I was watching.
That was about two years ago the first time I saw it. I saw it again very recently and... I liked it. I liked it a lot! The music, the settings, some of the dialogue, for whatever reason it really shined for me the second go around.
The only thing I didn't really like was Harrison Fords narration throughout the movie. I don't know.. it just felt.. odd. Could have done without it. But other than that, I thought it was an absolutely amazing film.
And damn at Roy's monologue at the end.. so good. So fucking good.
That was about two years ago the first time I saw it. I saw it again very recently and... I liked it. I liked it a lot! The music, the settings, some of the dialogue, for whatever reason it really shined for me the second go around.
The only thing I didn't really like was Harrison Fords narration throughout the movie. I don't know.. it just felt.. odd. Could have done without it. But other than that, I thought it was an absolutely amazing film.
And damn at Roy's monologue at the end.. so good. So fucking good.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Urgh. You're watching the wrong cut of the movie.
ElectricBlue187
Member
there's lots of things with the test that don't make sense. It made more sense in the book (empathy is a huge part of Do Androids Dream..) but in the movie by itself an empathy tests seems about the least efficient/effective way of detecting replicants imaginable
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
How many are there??
Inferno313
Banned
Dude, you just watched the worst version of the movie.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Seven.
You should be watching the Final Cut. The theatrical version is theone of worst goddamn pieces of studio interference in the editing room I've seen.
Inferno313
Banned
You saw the theatrical cut which is generally considered to be quite bad.
Check out the Final Cut, or even the director's cut. Those are both MUCH better and much closer to what Scott originally wanted.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
well I watched the final cut on friday, as always a very enjoyable film
I just love the art direction and the whole feel of the film.
but right at the begining when it says LA 2019 (or something to that effect) I was like, sadly no, not going to happen in 7 years
found
Yeah it has to be seen as an alternate universe now
Forceatowulf
G***n S**n*bi
Seven versions?? Mother of god...
What's the difference between the Final Cut and the Directors cut? I'm only going to watch one of them.
What's the difference between the Final Cut and the Directors cut? I'm only going to watch one of them.
There's a bunch of small, almost unnoticeable differences, mostly corrections of technical mistakes(you don't see wires anymore on the hover cars for instance). The biggest difference for me is the change in color grading, gives the movie a more modern look.
The Final Cut is the only one with Scott's seal of approval, and is the one you should watch.
Int'l version is the best. Retains the narration and doesn't cut the violence.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
To those jumping into the thread late, there is a breakdown of all the different versions in the OP.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Why on earth would somebody want to watch a cut that retains the fuckawful narration?
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Cocaine is a hell of a drug. Only rational explanation.
But, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
This was really quite interesting. Thanks (two weeks late)
A lot of people like the film noir feel that it adds. I also think it has something to do with which version you saw first. Either way, for me Deckard's character doesn't feel as developed without it.
If the narration was good, I could feel the film noir angle.
But it isn't. So I can't.
- Status