ALL SCI-FI Forum Index ALL SCI-FI
Nothin' but pure science fiction!
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Blade Runner (1982)

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 1970 to 2000
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 12342
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2015 10:34 pm    Post subject: Blade Runner (1982) Reply with quote



Everybody knows what this movie is about, so I'll kick off this discussion with my take on the controversial theory concerning whether or not Deckard (Harrison Ford) is actually a replicant himself and doesn't know it.

The film (all seven versions) provides no definitive answer to this question — and the film makers themselves are actually divided on the subject!

The Wikipedia article says this:

Both Michael Deeley (the producer) and Harrison Ford (the star) wanted Deckard to be human, while Hampton Fancher (the screenwriter) preferred ambiguity. Ridley Scott has confirmed that in his vision, Deckard is a replicant.

The first time I read what Scott stated I thought the idea was silly!

But after a bit more thought I realized it would make the story much more interesting. And the movie sets up the idea perfectly.

Consider this.

Dr. Eldon Tyrell made Rachael just as real as possible to see if he could create a perfect artificial human — right down to her implanted memories so that even she believed she was real.

So, Tyrell went a step farther; he created a replicant of a living Blade Runner (the real Deckard), a man who hunted down replicants while having no clue he was one himself.

When I first pondered this question I realized we were supposed to be fooled by the fact that Deckard's former superior makes reference to having known him for years — thereby proving to us that Deckard was human.

And Deckard most certainly was human. . . until he was killed and secretly replaced by Dr. Tyrell with the replicant-Deckard for his experiment. Human-Deckard's memories were implanted in replicant-Deckard's head before he was sent out to unwittingly prove that replicants were perfect artificial humans.

What are your thoughts on this, folks?

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:53 pm; edited 5 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Pye-Rate
Starship Co-Pilot


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 651

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 4:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

_________________________________

__________ Blade Runner Trailer - Classic Noir


_________

_________________
The road to tomorrow runs through yesterday.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1833

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 5:16 am    Post subject: Re: Blade Runner (1982) Reply with quote

Bud Brewster wrote:
And Deckard most certainly was human. . . until he was killed and secretly replaced by Dr. Tyrell with the replicant-Deckard for his experiment.

What are your thoughts on this, folks?

"I woke up one morning and all of my stuff had been stolen... and replaced by exact duplicates."
─ Stephen Wright

_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 12342
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 11:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Frankly I wasn't over impressed with this movie when I first saw it.

Oh sure, it has a lot visually impressive scenes, and the music is lovely — but story-wise it just seemed grim and pessimistic simply because it was fashionable to show that people are rotten and mankind is headed towards a future which really sucks.

But when I realized that Deckard was a replicant, his character sudden became much more interesting, and the story has an unexpected depth. It even has an element of hope that it wouldn't have without that brilliant and important element.

Here's why.

If mankind is headed toward a grim future, and if people are essential rotten, then Tyrell's perverted experiment might be a good thing that came out of an evil act. The inhumane and immoral Tyrell created two very humane and moral "humans" who surpassed their creator in all the ways that count.

If Blade Runner is just a story about how low the human race has sunk, I'm not really interested in it. But if it's about a miraculous and unexpected twist that actually spawns a better version of mankind than mankind himself . . . and that's a story worthy of my time and attention.

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sun Mar 04, 2018 4:54 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
orzel-w
Galactic Ambassador


Joined: 19 Sep 2014
Posts: 1833

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 3:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

But would the experiment be repeatable? It seems like all the essential personnel on the project were eliminated. Is it now up to just Deckard and Rachael to multiply like rabbits?
_________________
...or not...

WayneO
-----------
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 12342
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Tue Aug 09, 2016 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

orzel-w wrote:
But would the experiment be repeatable? It seems like all the essential personnel on the project were eliminated. Is it now up to just Deckard and Rachael to multiply like rabbits?

Since the point of experiment was to create artificial humans that were as good as real humans, the success of the experiment would be determined by their ability to reproduce.

Therefore, yes. Deckard and Rachel would be expected to do the "jungle rumble" and make fake babies.
Very Happy
_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Tue Aug 09, 2016 9:18 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 12342
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Sun Apr 29, 2018 12:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

I posted a fan-made trailer for The Last Starfighter (1984) on the thread for that movie, and the trailer had this amusing message at the beginning.






I wondered just how true the claim at the bottom was, so I made a list of 1980s science fiction films that I thought were good, just to see if that decade really did produce a significant number of “the best” sci-fi movies.

This movie is on the list I made. I know what I like about the film (and a few things I don’t like), but I’d like to hear the pros and cons from the rest of you folks.

So, what do you think, guys? Cool

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mach7
Space Ranger


Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 118

PostPosted: Tue May 29, 2018 10:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bud, like you I was not impressed with this film when it came out. I waited 10-15 years to watch it again. For whatever reason it really made me think.

I've watched it many times since and it gets better each time. This is one of the few films where the movie is better than the book, by a long shot.

I've heard all the theories about Deckard being a replicant. The movie is vague, purposely and rightly so.

I wasn't convinced.

The visual imagery and story are amazing. Rutger Haure is inspired, when I first saw it I thought the Daryl Hannah was the weak link. Boy was I wrong!

I've now seen Blade Runner 2049, and I'm somewhat disappointed that they answered the question.

BTW, while I liked 2049, I didn't love it. I'll wait a while and rewatch it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bogmeister
Galactic Fleet Vice Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 529

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

____________
_____________

___________________ Blade Runner (1982)


__________


Blade Runner was Ridley Scott's follow-up to Alien (79). In the previous film, the focus was on the alien monster, with the futuristic backdrop mostly peripheral.

Here, the future is presented in all its splendor — it becomes more about the vast architecture and sets than anything else, including the characters. The character who comes off best is lead Replicant Roy Batty (goofy name), played by Rutger Hauer. This was a breakthrough role for the actor and he dominates much of the film, including the efforts of Harrison Ford as the main lead, detective Deckard.

Based on Phillip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, the near-future of 2019 L.A. forms the backdrop for the tale of a group of Replicants — artificial humans or androids — who have gone rogue after serving as mankind's soldiers in outer space somewhere.


______________ Blade Runner - Opening Scene


__________



___________________

2019 seemed like a long way off when this was first released but is now just around the corner. Hence the futuristic scenario here does not look feasible now. Maybe in year 2059.

Everything in the film — the plot, the characters, the themes — seems subordinate to the visual presentation of this vast city, whether these are all governed by the wet weather or the smokey atmosphere, or by the baroque architecture and retro interiors.

I got bored when I first watched this in a theater back in '82, but later I could relax with the images, especially with great DVD quality, and just drink in all the ambiance and tone of the piece. Though the visuals drown out some of the character work, this doesn't mean that these are poor performances; on the contrary, most of the supporting roles are very well done.




Morgan Paull has a brief role at the start, sort of like Deckard's predecessor; he's very compelling. Other Replicants are played by Darryl Hannah (early role), Brion James and Joanna Cassidy — all excellent. Then there's the sad William Sanderson, who manages some pathos.

Edward James Olmos is always intense, here in the small role of another cop. The ever-reliable M.Emmet Walsh is the head of police and sends Deckard after the Replicants. And Joe Turkel is the corporation head who developed those troublesome Replicants.

The powerful theme involves artificial beings seeking out their creator for answers and salvation, but it's predictably downbeat — these creations aren't much different from humanity, just more durable (yet, with severely limited lifespans). The disturbing element involves the lack of difference between them and us; it might remind us that we are not, after all, divine.



This film has gained quite a reputation in science fiction circles — and it's sometimes rated #1 on lists — but it's a bit over-rated. The pace is very slow in parts and some tantalizing questions are never addressed, such as why some Replicants rebel and others do not.

Why, for example, is Batty a leader and more evolved than most other Replicants? No one, including their creator, muses on this at any time.

There exist at least 3 different versions of this film — one might be with Deckard's narration, another may not. The big question which materialized over time in the various versions is whether Deckard himself is a Replicant. Director Scott himself has pushed forward this possibility, but this premise does not advance or improve on the story at all.



Blade Trivia: Though highly-regarded now, this was one of Harrison Ford's lowest grossing films

The year before, '81, Raiders of the Lost Ark grossed $248 million; the year after Blade Runner, the final Star Wars film, Return of the Jedi, grossed $309 million. Blade Runner grossed only $33 million at the time of its original run.

BoG's Score: 8 out of 10






BoG
Galaxy Overlord Galactus


Last edited by Bogmeister on Sun May 19, 2019 1:24 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 12342
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2019 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bogmeister wrote:
There exist at least 3 different versions of this film — one might be with Deckard's narration, another may not. The big question which materialized over time in the various versions is whether Deckard himself is a Replicant. Director Scott himself has pushed forward this possibility, but this premise does not advance or improve on the story at all.

I submit that Andrew was dead wrong to think that the additional plot element concerning Deckard's true nature as a replicant (without knowing it) would "not advance or improve on the story at all."

What it would do is super-charge a story that (to me, at least) is easy to describe in eight words. "Replicants rebel, cop hunts them down . . . The End." Rolling Eyes

However, the idea that Dr. Eldon Tyrell wanted to find out if he could make a replicant who could pass completely as a human is very interesting.

The story SHOULD have been about how Tyrell made a replicant which was a copy of an actual Blade Runner and then disposed of the original. Tyrell gave the "replicant Deckard" artificial memories, then sent him out completely unaware that he was not the real Deckard . . . a Blade Runner who continued to hunt down replicants when they rebelled. Shocked

It would be the ultimate test of Tyrell's creation. Even the "replicant hunter" doesn't realize he's a replicant!

When he meets Rachael, he determines she's a replicant, and he develops feelings for her. Near the end, when he finds our HE'S a replicant too, he runs off with Rachael, and they speculate about the possibility that Tyrell even made them both capable of reproducing!

Now THAT'S a good story! And think of the sequels! Very Happy

Rise of the Replicants

War of the Replicants

Planet of the Replicants!

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?


Last edited by Bud Brewster on Sun Jul 26, 2020 12:17 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ralfy
Quantum Engineer


Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 348

PostPosted: Sun Jul 26, 2020 9:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm re-watching it right now. I had to pause and mention that I completely forgot the point that it's set in LA in November, 2019.

"Blade Runner was set in November, 2019. Here's what it and other movies got right and wrong about the 'future'"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-01/blade-runner-is-set-today-the-future-is-now/11504502
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bud Brewster
Galactic Fleet Admiral (site admin)


Joined: 14 Dec 2013
Posts: 12342
Location: North Carolina

PostPosted: Thu Aug 06, 2020 12:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

________________________________

Thinking Outside the "Plot"!
________________________________

As I've stated in other posts, the version of Blade Runner that appeals to me the most (even though it's not what Phillip K. Dick and screenplay writers Hampton Fancher and David Webb Peoples had in mind) is one which has Dr. Eldon Tyrell create Deckard as a test to see if he could make a replicant so much indistinguishable from humans that even HE would know it.

So, the real Deckard was killed, the replicant Deckard was given false memories, and he he unknowingly assumed the identity of the actual man.

That was just a review. Here's a new idea.

~ A Question for the Members: After Rachael and Deckard go off together, both knowing they're replicants, is it possible they would decide to somehow create replicants of themselves which would remain in suspended animation and someday assume their identities — thus extending their lifespans in a way?

~ My Theory: Remember Roy Batty's dying words about how it was tragic for all his memories and experiences to be lost at the moment of his death? That was an important point in the movie.

Since my pet version of the premise has both Deckard and Rachael reconciled to being replicants with false memories of their "childhoods" and real memories from their adult experiences, I think they might want to artificially continue their "life journeys" by preserving their personalities and character traits, along with their own treasured memories in the new versions of themselves.

Whether they would want the duplicates to know they were both Version 2.0 is another question to ponder.


_______________ Blade Runner - Final scene


_________

_________________
____________
Is there no man on Earth who has the wisdom and innocence of a child?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ralfy
Quantum Engineer


Joined: 23 Sep 2014
Posts: 348

PostPosted: Wed Aug 12, 2020 3:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They can theorize about the idea of copying not just memories but one's consciousness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    ALL SCI-FI Forum Index -> Sci-Fi Movies from 1970 to 2000 All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group