View Full Version : "Blade Runner" : the movie.

November 1st, 2008, 10:40 AM
I have read the book, and have seen the movie: Blade Runner. This thread, I hope, will be good source for news, information and commentary on this "Cult Classic" film.

The only comment about the film I have at this point is 'that it is now official': Deckard IS a replicant. According to those who know more about it than I (http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/bladerunner-faq/)say the main evidence that Dekard is a replicant is the appearance of the Origami Unicorn - somewhere in the middle of the film - and Deckards' Unicorn dream at the end of the film. I personally never did read that closely into the film/book; but do enjoy hearing the various reviews and analysis of the movie.

The movie, "Blade Runner" - http://www.blade-runner.it/

The Book, "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" By Philip K. Dick -

P.S. I have the directors cut version of the film, and would be glad to lend it any Wiredny member who would like to borrow the CD.

November 3rd, 2008, 10:33 AM
I don't think that really matters, if Deckard was the character played by Harrison.

AAMOF, the message gets a bit diluted if you remove the humanity from the lead (protagonist?). I think, if I remember right, that the Unicorn was left on the window sill as a message to Deck from Edwin James Olmos (forgot his character) that he was there and he knew about the woman being an android. (again, if I remember right).

He always left them at the scene of any runner he tagged.

It might have meant more, but I think the main problem is that sometimes a plot has a relatively simple and strait-forward message in some of its devices, but we, as fans, read more into it in hopes of some literary easter egg that will somehow make us feel better for finding something someone else did not.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes Origami is just a folded sheet of paper......

November 3rd, 2008, 02:51 PM
The only comment about the film I have at this point is 'that it is now official': Deckard IS a replicant.

Only thing that is official is that the Director (Ridley Scott) liked the idea of Deckard being a replicant. Does that make it so? NO! Both the actor (Harrison Ford) and the producer (Michael Deeley) favored the opposite interpretation. And the writer took out dialog that would tip the scales in any particular direction. So...

In the end, since its never stated outright - its up to the viewer to decide whether or not its true (or even if it matters).

November 3rd, 2008, 04:19 PM
Although this thread is about a film, mention is also made of its original source material, and legendary author - Philip K. Dick. Yes, I know, very laughable name.

Philip K. Dick, as is known among the well-read sci-fi enthusiasts, was a highly-motivated man, who profited little from his work during his short life. Other than a few prestigious awards, he never received the type of money to live even a moderately decent life. Despite the fact that he was a prolithic writer, of quality, for which he claimed to have a special insight brought about by a mysterious source, he carried labels with him that ranged from "certifiably insane" to "unappreciated genius."

Last I heard, there were somewhere between five to ten films, either made or contemplated, from stories written by Phil Dick. All of this, of course, was after his death. Beyond Blade Runner, I am familiar with three others: Total Recall, Minority Report, and Screamers.

He reminded me of Vincent van Gogh, not only because of his gotee, and his struggles to learn his craft/art, but also because of his often alledged insanity, that curiously motivated him to create arguably his best and most intensive work.

I suppose that film, in this age of CGI, will likely be more attractive in finally introducing the masses to Phil Dick's ideas and stories - his published work obviously didn't. The only problem is that these strains of his work are being filtered and ultimately transformed into something that will obscure his great talent. Here is hoping that those, other than from a rather insular sci-fi crowd, will become interested enough to read some of Phil Dick's stories in unaltered form - this work is certainly worth the effort.

November 3rd, 2008, 04:36 PM
If we were to put Blade Runner on the same level as TR or MR, with the supposition that they all came from equal source material I can say that, although the EFFECTS were much better on the last two, they ignored much of what could be potentially misinterpreted by the general viewing public. I did not get any subplots or real subtle societal messages in the other two.

BR was a cult classic made in a time where some movies could be made that risked a bit of popular attention to get more of a message across.

It is VERY difficult to do that now.

I will have to pick these up. I am running out of decent sci-fi.

Sci-Fi Authors I read that I can still remember their names:
Kim Stanley Robertson
Ben Bova
Robert Silverberg
>mixed< "Wild Cards" compilation series

That's all I can remember.

Oh, as for crossovers, Gaiman is fun to read!

Any other suggestions, so long as we are thinking of good Fiction?

November 3rd, 2008, 06:59 PM
Thanks folks for helping to get this new thread started: I saw something interesting posted on another Blade Runner website today. Apparently 'this piece (http://www.duke.edu/~tlove/mac.htm)' was done by the same director who did the film.


November 4th, 2008, 08:32 AM
I don't think much of the story make sense if Deckhart is a replicant; certainly not his inability to phisically confront 'Roy'.

November 7th, 2008, 09:11 AM
I don't think much of the story make sense if Deckhart is a replicant; certainly not his inability to phisically confront 'Roy'.

My main contention is that Ridley Scott - as the director of the film version - created (and directed) each of the characters in the film according to what HE conceived them to be: he has 'officially' stated that he intended for Deckard to be a replicant. The only reason Deckhard's true identity remained a mystery was because Harrison Ford insisted that the audience (being human) needed someone to "cheer for"; and apparently the director of the film went along with that idea. I am only reporting on what Ridley Scott has said; and not in any way attempting to argue for my 'interpretation' of the character.

To answer your question, here are a few examples as to why its seems obvious that the director conceived the character (Deckart) as being a replicant, and why Deckart was unable to physically confront 'Roy". Replicants had a variety of different "specifications" regarding physical strength, combat ability; also for attributes such as intelligence, empathy, ect.

Even when two 'models' were built to the SAME specification there was considerable variation in any given capacity. Also, only a replicant could survive the beatings that Deckard takes, and then struggle up the side of a building with two dislocated fingers, as was the case in his battle with Roy.

Excerpt from the FAQ:
Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have stated that Deckard was meant to be a
replicant. In Details magazine (US) October 1992 Ford says:

"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled
with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the
audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that
because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

November 9th, 2008, 12:08 PM
Another interesting aspect of this movie is the use of famous works of architecture as part of the film sets, this (http://www.oobject.com/15-scifi-movies-15-famous-architectural-locations/frank-lloyd-wright-ennis-house-blade-runner/2575/) Frandk Loyd Wright building was "adapted" for use as the base of the high-rise condo where Deckard lived.

Also there are a some views of the Bradbury Building (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradbury_Building), mostly interiors, in the film.



Also - Here is link (http://www.bladezone.com/) to another BR website I recently discovered.

December 10th, 2008, 12:40 PM
Just purchased the 4 Disk Blade Runner Set - 25% off list at a Deep Discount store near Chicago.

I had forgotten that the first theatrical version had the narration of Deckard (Ford), and it was awful in every respect.

Seeing it again and again and again and again, through all four versions, especially the final one made twenty-five years later in 2007, made me realise how much I appreciated the Nexus 6 replicant known as "Roy Batty," and performed by actor Rutger Hauer. Not a note missed, not a nuance lost. His final scene was especially moving as the dove is released, just after his final words are uttered in a poetic phrasing. The film could have faded to black then and there.

December 10th, 2008, 09:01 PM
His final scene was especially moving as the dove is released, just after his final words are uttered in a poetic phrasing. The film could have faded to black then and there.

Totally agree; a moving soliloquy -
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die."

Another great quote (this one funny) spoken by the bio-engineer who designs replicants: "I make friends".

December 11th, 2008, 09:45 AM
Not fade to black...

More like pan to Harrison, in the rain, just looking stunned as it kind of dawns on him what this was all about.

Then, without another word, pulling back slowly to show them there on the roof, the town, the city, possibly the sky.

Sort of a signal that their fight, though significant to them, meant so little to the world at large which goes on its course as if nothing ever happened.

The only way Harrison should talk is in a possible epilogue AFTER the credits. Even that would be much. Epilogues can ruin a mood (Return of teh King is a good example of an Epilogue that just would not stop!!!!).

Anyway, there are always good ways to end thnigs....

This flik, however, would probably be a good one to sequel, using some of the same characters as background (the new hunter would seek out Harrison, in hiding, for advice on a new batch of androids try to jump ship).

The key would be, not to fall in to the trap of a rehash, but take it from where it left off and develop it further.

What happened in the 30 years since the life changer for Harrison's character. Do they have another to replace the guy Rutger killed? etc etc....