Blade Runner

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Ridley Scott made the conclusion that he was a replicant pretty clear, but IIRC that's not the author's intention. Personally, I think that was a bad direction to go, but most people wouldn't realize it, anyway.

The latest "Final Cut" version in Blu-ray is awesome. They even re-shot a scene with Joanna Cassidy and another with Harrison Ford's son to fix some glaring flaws.

In the interview on the BluRay Ridley Scott claims that the doubts raised in the original release about Decker being anything but 100% human were unintentional. He is annoyed and maybe even angered when people suggest that Decker could be a replicant.

The "Final Cut" version never even hinted Decker was a replicant, which was the director's corrective intent.

In the original, doubts about Decker, if he were a replicant, and if he could love a replicant (Rachael) and therefore love himself were in my memory one of the wonderful humanistic, mystic, physiological, philosophical aspects of the story.

The Final Cut strips this all away, leaving us nothing to ponder and wonder about.

The Final Cut did not even raise the question if Decker could be falling in love with Rachael. His motivation for taking her away at the end is now a mystery, and it fails with tragic disconnect.

By contrast, the BluRay of 2001 Space Odyssey leaves in the fetus looking at Earth at the end. The various interpretations of it's meaning delights the director to this day, at least according to his comments in the extra features on the BluRay.

Ambiguity when done artistically, can be a beautiful thing.

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by kach22i

Ambiguity when done artistically, can be a beautiful thing.

+1

[Bob Kontak]

Originally Posted by Scott R

This is the same thing I thought. Until that darn unicorn scene came out in the directors cut it never was clear.

Man, I completely missed this. Remember the unicorn dream scene but never picked up on it as to possible meaning.

So I am reading comments below one of the youtube videos and someone posts:

He is a replicant and everyone should know it. The fact the guy left a unicorn outside the apartment at the end of the story suggests that he has access to his dreams and memories the same way Deckard did for the girl (forgot her name).

I saw the foil unicorn but it never registered. Cool!

Here is the scene but not the video that had the above comment.

Blade Runner - The Dream - YouTube

[Baz]

Originally Posted by Tobra

Daryl Hannah=horseface---snip---

Yeah I can hardly stand to look at her!!!

[Tobra]

put a paper sack on her head for me

[masraum]

I've never really thought much of Darryl Hannah. Nice body, but not much of a face. The most attractive I've ever seen her is in BR with the weird makeup.

[Steve Carlton]

Originally Posted by kach22i

In the interview on the BluRay Ridley Scott claims that the doubts raised in the original release about Decker being anything but 100% human were unintentional. He is annoyed and maybe even angered when people suggest that Decker could be a replicant.

The "Final Cut" version never even hinted Decker was a replicant, which was the director's corrective intent.

In the original, doubts about Decker, if he were a replicant, and if he could love a replicant (Rachael) and therefore love himself were in my memory one of the wonderful humanistic, mystic, physiological, philosophical aspects of the story.

The Final Cut strips this all away, leaving us nothing to ponder and wonder about.

The Final Cut did not even raise the question if Decker could be falling in love with Rachael. His motivation for taking her away at the end is now a mystery, and it fails with tragic disconnect.

By contrast, the BluRay of 2001 Space Odyssey leaves in the fetus looking at Earth at the end. The various interpretations of it's meaning delights the director to this day, at least according to his comments in the extra features on the BluRay.

Ambiguity when done artistically, can be a beautiful thing.

Ridley Scott has openly admitted that Deckard is a replicant. The Director's Cut and the Final Cut make it more clear that this is the case, not the opposite.

[kach22i]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

Ridley Scott has openly admitted that Deckard is a replicant. The Director's Cut and the Final Cut make it more clear that this is the case, not the opposite.

I think that interview you have attached is from the earlier "Director's cut" (which I've also seen), and not the later "Final Cut" where the director appears to be much older and even perhaps bitter and annoyed.

I'll rent the Final Cut when I get a chance just to watch the interview. I do think he flipped flopped.

[sc_rufctr]

I think you're right he did flip flop...

I never thought Decker was a replicant. He wasn't special or extraordinary in any way like the other replicants he was hunting.
But then again "More human than human" was the Tyrel corporations motto.

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by kach22i

The "Final Cut" version never even hinted Decker was a replicant, which was the director's corrective intent.

In the original, doubts about Decker, if he were a replicant, and if he could love a replicant (Rachael) and therefore love himself were in my memory one of the wonderful humanistic, mystic, physiological, philosophical aspects of the story.

The Final Cut strips this all away, leaving us nothing to ponder and wonder about.

I own all three versions on DVD. My favorite is still the original theatrical release because of the questions it leaves. I like when a movie leaves me thinking.

My favorite scene of all is when Roy is dying. Hauer said that he ad-libbed a bit with the dialogue, as the script was a bit thin there. I think he did it perfectly.

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

...

My favorite scene of all is when Roy is dying. Hauer said that he ad-libbed a bit with the dialogue, as the script was a bit thin there. I think he did it perfectly.

That's also my favourite scene... Somehow Hauer captured a real human moment.

I can't explain it any better than that.

[tcar]

The Directors Cut that I saw didn't have the fantastic sound track... Vangelis... and the great saxaphone solos...

When I bought the DVD, I looked long and hard for the original theatrical version. 10X better.

[foxpaws]

the theatrical version is a lot better - sometimes directors should stay away with their own ideas of 'editing' - in this case Scott's editors did a much better job than he did...

However - I have always been sad that they didn't use Dick's title - Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

[cashflyer]

Dick's title would not have sold as many tickets.
Blade Runner has better curb appeal on the box office posters.

[Baz]

Interesting comments on how different so-called enhanced versions of a film can come up short vs. the original.

An example that comes to mind is the classic surf film "Storm Riders" by Hoole/McCoy. Quite a few years ago I found and purchased a VHS version on eBay but years later the DVD was available so I bought it thinking this would be an "upgrade" from the VHS version. Boy was I wrong! They cut out some really great parts of the movie including the Ted Deerhurst segment. Ted was an English lord. A vicount to be exact. He's the only British surfer to date ever to compete in the A.S.P. World Tour and be ranked in the top ten. This segment was really cool....the background music was a song called "I'm not like everybody else" by Jimmy and the Boys (an Aussie group of course) and showed Ted working out as he trained to compete on the world surfing tour platform. He narrates quite a bit of the segment too. Ted passed away a number of years ago at a fairly young age so taking this segment out really bites on that level alone!!!

Here's the trailer to Storm Riders...it's a cult classic! But get the VHS so you can see Vicount Ted!

[sc_rufctr]

Originally Posted by foxpaws

the theatrical version is a lot better - sometimes directors should stay away with their own ideas of 'editing' - in this case Scott's editors did a much better job than he did...

However - I have always been sad that they didn't use Dick's title - Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

I agree. The multiple versions of this film have annoyed me over the years.
The original theatrical version I saw had narration by Deckers character all the way through the movie.... And most importantly he stated at the end that Rachel although a replicant didn't have a limited life span of four years.

[Jim727]

I only saw the original when it came out and thought it brilliant. You guys have cured me of any latent desire to see any of the reworks - for that I thank you.

I am definitely motivated to revisit the book on which the movie is based: "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" The original, not the rewrite. Don't remember if the questions are answered there or not. Hmmmmm.

[Baz]

It's on again tonight on AMC at 8 Eastern......

[red-beard]

I wish we could ask Phillip about Decker. Way too sad.

I love the movie, but I think I've only seen the original. As is usual, the book it better.

[Eric 88 Carrera]

In the sequel novels authorized by the Dick estate by KW Jeter, Deckard was revealed to be a replicant. The explanation being that you can't send a mouse to catch a cat.

The more interesting issues raised by Dick are what makes us human? Can beings that have all of the genetic characteristics of human be arbitrarily be defined as not human? Is it OK to enslave someone by defining them as subhuman? Can the worth and status of an individual (Rachel) be defined by the convenience of her creator (Tyrell)? Can that status change based on the whim of the creator?

I believe that this novel and movie present a very strong pro-life message about the dignity and worth of human life. I am quite surprised that the Pro-abortion Feminist Left didn't hate this movie.