|
How is that different from the Director's Cut though? If the Unicorn bits make it hard to refute that Deckard is a replicant, then the theatrical cut is the only version that leaves open the possibility of him being human. It's hardly a case of Ridley going back and changing things to "take his ball and run home" in that case, as the "directors cut" is a cut assembled years after the fact based on his initial notes before finishing the first cut of the film.
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
It's like all PKD stories, the questionable reality is more about us making meaning of our own lives than wondering what our lives mean (see also: the questionable ending to Minority Report that directly references Solaris).
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Scott only gave a definitive answer to that in an interview like 25 years after the movie came out because people kept asking for a straight answer over and over again. Ever previously like when the director's cut first came out he always talked about Deckard being a replicant in terms of that being an interesting idea and a mystery worth thinking about as in there not being a definitive answer. And despite what he's decades after the fact I think the Final Cut still supports that. It's not saying Deckard = literally a replicant but that it's not totally possible to tell, does it even matter, etc. The extra lines they added back in from Gaff in the Final Cut don't end with "There's a 90% chance Deckard's a replicant because you the audience saw 6 things that support that and only 4 things against," they end with "hard to tell who's who around here." If anything the Director's Cut makes a stronger case for him being a replicant than the Final Cut because the Final Cut fixes the continuity error where Bryant corrects him about how many replicants are left (in the DC and theatrical he gives one number extra, this was referring to a cut character named Mary but in the film it, like the unicorn dream makes you wonder about Deckard himself and why Bryant feels the need to bring this up). The point is that there isn't an easy answer to "what makes us human." Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:It's like all PKD stories, the questionable reality is more about us making meaning of our own lives than wondering what our lives mean (see also: the questionable ending to Minority Report that directly references Solaris). Yeah and it's irrelevant (which is sort of an argument for not including the origami stuff because doesn't much) since the best read is still the same: whether Deckard is a replicant or not makes no difference. The distinction was always arbitrary and illusory. Roy Batty was a real person with real feelings and real ethics and real confusions. Rachel is a real person. Deckard is a real person. The story attacks this from a different angle with all the synthetic animal stuff, which is just a minor motif in the movie, but every version of the story is pretty much in sync.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 07:33
|
|
|
The script writer, who believes that Deckard is human, loves the unicorn bit. He thinks it'S part of the theme of Deckard becoming more like a machine and dehumanization in general. THey know his thoughts, how he thinks, making him like a cog in their machine. Just an interesting thought. Personally, I believe it's impossible to know and that's the point.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
I don't get how the Deckard is a replicant debate is relevant anymore? The Blade Runner 2049 trailer answers this question definitively that no he is not a replicant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 16:17
|
|
|
Eight years of MCU movies has us ever-wary that what we're seeing in the trailer is just Deckard's Living Model Decoy and not a real human, wait a minute... There is fan speculation that the Deckard we see here is human but whose attributes and memories were used as a template for the Deckard we see in Blade Runner. But honestly I think you're right and that that's not the case. Were Blade Runner adapted more closely to the plot of the book I'd agree with it, since its explicit in the book that most replicants are based on specific people, but in the movie the Nexus 6 replicants are special because they have memory implants, so this wasn't a typical thing outside of this first wave of them that got made. Ideally they make a compelling film that, whatever answers is does provide, still doesn't quite give us a full picture on Deckard himself because that would be pretty impressive. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Dec 27, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 16:59
|
|
|
"I've kept myself alive just so I could meet you, Ryan Gosling. Now that my dream is achieved, I can die. Also, I thought Lost River was a great film."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
I said come in! posted:I don't get how the Deckard is a replicant debate is relevant anymore? The Blade Runner 2049 trailer answers this question definitively that no he is not a replicant. It really doesn't answer the question definitively at all. There's a few different possible explanations that would involve him being a replicant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Magic Hate Ball posted:"I've kept myself alive just so I could meet you, Ryan Gosling. Now that my dream is achieved, I can die. Also, I thought Lost River was a great film." "I used to have your job as the sexiest man alive. I was a good at it."
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 17:02
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:There is fan speculation that the Deckard we see here is human but whose attributes and memories were used as a template for the Deckard we see in Blade Runner. But honestly I think you're right and that that's not the case. Were Blade Runner adapted more closely to the plot of the book I'd agree with it, since its explicit in the book that most replicants are based on specific people, but in the movie the Nexus 6 replicants are special because they have memory implants, so this wasn't a typical thing outside of this first wave of them that got made. Ideally they make a compelling film that, whatever answers is does provide, still doesn't quite give us a full picture on Deckard himself because that would be pretty impressive. The other explanation would just be that the Nexus 6 replicants were the first that would be able to grow old and age just like humans. Maybe we'll find out that Deckard lived with Rachel for like 30 years but she eventually died. I'd say maybe she's even still alive but then that would mean they had to hire Sean Young and obviously that's not happening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 17:10
|
|
|
Ryan Gosling will shoot Harrison Ford in the face and nuts and bolts will come out. Everyone will rage on how the unneeded sequel ruined the mystery of the original, none louder than ya boy right here Pycckuu.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
King Vidiot posted:For me, it's the very fact that it was added. It was basically Ridley Scott going "I wrote Deckard as a replicant, in my vision he is a replicant, nobody should ever mistake him for anything but a replicant" and taking his ball and running home. I think the movie is better when the seed of doubt is planted in the viewer's mind as to whether he's a replicant or not, but with no direct evidence either way. I've actually always seen it the opposite way. If Gaff is more or less the "real" Blade Runner and Deckard is his tool, then it ties into the ubiquity of synthetic animals, fake memories and such where the human experience is slowly becoming obsolete. We've handed off all our existential crises and journeys of self-discovery to machines while we live lives of terminal mundanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 21:37
|
|
|
Pycckuu posted:Ryan Gosling will shoot Harrison Ford in the face and nuts and bolts will come out. Everyone will rage on how the unneeded sequel ruined the mystery of the original, none louder than ya boy right here Pycckuu. My literal dream scenario for the movie is that this happens like two minutes into the flick without comment from Gosling/etc. and Deckard is specifically referred to as a human being by him even after his death for maximum nerd rage.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
Pycckuu posted:Ryan Gosling will shoot Harrison Ford in the face and nuts and bolts will come out. Everyone will rage on how the unneeded sequel ruined the mystery of the original, none louder than ya boy right here Pycckuu. *squeak* Deckard: Oh, sorry about that, need to oil that door. *drops origami from his sleeve* Deckard: Oh, how did that get there *stumbles, dropping a spring from his left trouser leg D: That doesn't prove anyth- *pratfalls and swears allegiance to Skynet*
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 22:05
|
|
|
The second Blade Runner film will reveal the first Blade Runner film was a replicant and needed to be terminated since it was no longer producing sufficient profits for the corporation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 22:18
|
|
|
Yeah, I always thought the point of the original film is, whether or not Deckard is physically a replicant, spiritually, he's not really a human. He's little more than a job and the tools to do it. The parallel with the photographs is making the point that Humanity (as a concept) is regressing, while the replicants are aggressively asserting their own humanity. We're passing each other.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Detective Dog Dick posted:I've actually always seen it the opposite way. If Gaff is more or less the "real" Blade Runner and Deckard is his tool, then it ties into the ubiquity of synthetic animals, fake memories and such where the human experience is slowly becoming obsolete. We've handed off all our existential crises and journeys of self-discovery to machines while we live lives of terminal mundanity. I've always held this view as well and like to think that Deckard is part of a pilot program of introducing replicants into the police force (hence Gaff's supervision). It's another elegant example of reality being replaced by representations in the film which underscores BR as a postmodern critique of postmodernism/late capitalism. The extension of synthetic things further into the world of the film is a literal expression of the commodification of capital, and introducing replicants into the police force is a nice way of implying that the system is starting to consume itself.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 02:47
|
|
|
Big reveal is there are no humans.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
That's just what your schizophrenia wants you to think, Philip.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
zenintrude posted:I'm kinda disappointed by the costuming so far... c'mon, t-shirts? That's where I'm at. I'm tenatively on board but T-Shirt Harrison Ford is annoying me if only because I feel like he's been picking up a reputation in the last decade as really phoning it in, and this is kind of reinforcing that idea in my minds eye. T-shirt and Denim jeans is just way too generic for what I expect in Futuristic Noir aesthetic. They couldn't even get him to wear like a button down shirt with the sleeves rolled up or something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2016 21:10
|
|
|
Given we've seen the same, very plain outfit on him in both trailer and promo image, it tells me he isn't going to be around for very long anyway.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
Having dealt with all the Replicants, Blade Runners are now employed as the defacto Los Angeles fashion police. This was not called execution. It was called good taste.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 13:28
|
|
|
I have a feeling that this movie is just going to be a futuristic John Wick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
The point of Blade runner is that whether or not Deckard is a replicant is a pointless question because replicants are human beings.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:I have a feeling that this movie is just going to be a futuristic John Wick. Though less ambitious than I'd prefer, John Wick also rules. A version of John Wick shot by Deakins sounds amazing. If it is nothing more than you're saying, it'll still be loving awesome.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 07:55
|
|
|
A Deacon posted:I have a feeling that this movie is just going to be a futuristic John Wick. So, it will finally live up to the promise of the comic book adaptation's cover...  It makes it look like a Bond movie. I love Deckard's high kick and the inclusion of some guys from the street scenes, except they now have guns, to spice things up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 08:44
|
|
|
Xealot posted:Though less ambitious than I'd prefer, John Wick also rules. A version of John Wick shot by Deakins sounds amazing. John Wick is also super pretty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
I wouldn't describe it as pretty, it's aesthetic feels too much like a music video but it generally works well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:23
|
|
|
Ammanas posted:I wouldn't describe it as pretty, it's aesthetic feels too much like a music video but it generally works well. Well, at least you didn't say video game.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 04:26
|
|
|
I never saw John Wick, is it a music video like energetic and colorful or like everything is desaturated? Why is either good or bad?Young Freud posted:So, it will finally live up to the promise of the comic book adaptation's cover... Always found it funny that Blade Runner's world of all things have never had a cool comic iteration given how influenced it was by comics. There was an official comic adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep that was also fuckin' awful.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 07:22
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:John Wick is also super pretty. No, no disrespect to the way it looks, Deakins is just a visual genius. I'm essentially picturing the Hong Kong skyscraper fight from Skyfall, in an 80's retro-future. If this movie doesn't look incredible, I'll be so disillusioned.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I never saw John Wick, is it a music video like energetic and colorful or like everything is desaturated? Why is either good or bad? It did spawn a lot of inspired by stuff. Like anime and videogames. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuyUShtcn94
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 08:43
|
|
|
Obviously. I just think it's weird so much ripped it off yet the thing itself didn't get more of a presence. Even video game wise, I mean this was an era where stuff like Hudson Hawk and Elvira got official video games. Nightbreed of all things has two totally unrelated official games. There was to be a Name of the Rose game (ended up being a ripoff released as Abbey of Crime, one of the best games ever made). There's Perry Mason video games. Basically anything went at the time. The C64 Blade Runner game isn't actually even "official" official as they only had the $ to license the credits song. The full title of the game is ""Bladerunner" - A Game Based on the Music of Vangelis"  and it's quite bad.I know the movie didn't do well and was semi-forgotten until the director's cut leaked but dang. We finally got an awesome Blade Runner game in 1998.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 09:05
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:There was to be a Name of the Rose game (ended up being a ripoff released as Abbey of Crime, one of the best games ever made). Holy poo poo what!!??
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:I know the movie didn't do well and was semi-forgotten until the director's cut leaked but dang. We finally got an awesome Blade Runner game in 1998. I think you underestimating the original theatrical cut's appeal. It might not have been a box office success, but it was enough of a cult hit once it reach cable and VHS. And like MonsieurChoc brought up, a lot of video games and anime, but it influenced film design, fashion, club life, architecture, etc. William Gibson was developing "Neuromancer" and it's said that after watching the first 20 minutes, he got depressed and rewrote the first two-thirds because he felt people would have think he copied the film's visuals.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 09:49
|
|
|
An Umberto Eco based videogame exists. Huh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 13:09
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:There was an official comic adaptation of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep that was also fuckin' awful. Well, at least it was faithful to the source material then.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 14:52
|
|
|
Bugblatter posted:An Umberto Eco based videogame exists. MonsieurChoc posted:Holy poo poo what!!?? For some context about how awesome that game was for its time, it was an overhead adventure game where the investigative monk and his protege (their names are changed to Gille and Adso) explore the monastery and interact with the various monks/find items/etc. to figure out what's up. What makes it unique is that everyone moves around in real time, and you lose the game by getting kicked out for poking around into things for too long. But obviously they can't be like "Sorry you're investigating these murders too well so get out" so instead there's a realistic real time schedule of meals, prayer services, etc. throughout each of the seven days the game takes place over. The more you're late for or miss stuff like that the more suspicious certain characters get until eventually you get kicked out under the guise of disrespecting God for being late to too many services. You can control both Gille and Adso, but what they did was have the AI for Adso automatically attend everything properly, so if you get lost or whatever you can just follow him which was pretty smart of the developers. Anyway the game is cool and all of this was accomplished on an Amstrad CPC in like 1987. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 08:51 |
|
|
A CG version of one of the replicants from the original film may appear in the movie: http://screencrush.com/blade-runner-2049-rumors/ Ideally it's a de-aged Harrison Ford but both are only ever referred to as being human throughout for maximum nerd anger. Realistically though this will probably be used briefly in a dream sequence or something.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2017 22:36
|
|