Roy G. Biv
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Posts
- 35
Am I the only person that doesn't understand this movie? I heard it was really good. Why?
Blade Runner - wtf?
- Thread starter Roy G. Biv
- Start date
).
Buro Destruct
Formerly known as, Buro Destruct, , Southtown Stre
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2002
- Posts
- 9,058
Search function.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2002
- Posts
- 17,094
D: You're reading a magazine -- you come across a full-page nude photo of a girl.
R: Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?
R: Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or a lesbian, Mr. Deckard?
Roy G. Biv
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Posts
- 35
PUNJABEE said:
When does it reveal that? And what was with that origami thing?
Well, if you look at the facts - There were (if memory serves me right) 6 replicants that escaped the facility. It's been a couple of years since I saw the movie, so forgive me if I'm off on the numbering.
Replicant #1 - Sean Young's character
Replicant #2 - Got fried in the escape and is dead at the beginning (going by what the 'police cheif' guy says.)
Replicant #3 - Rutger Hauer's character
Replicant #4 - Daryl Hanna's character
Replicant #5 - The guy at the very beginning (gets shot in the head, or back, i think)
Replicant #6 - ??? - Gotta be Deckard
I honestly can't remember if the girl he shoots in the back (the performer) was counted as a replicant, but I don't believe she was.
From what I understand ( i never saw the original version, btw.. only the Director's Cut which is supposed to suck in comparison to the original) Olmos' character leaves the little origami forms as clues or something. Clues to what, no idea.
I could be (and probably am) wrong, but that's the conclusion I came up with.
Replicant #1 - Sean Young's character
Replicant #2 - Got fried in the escape and is dead at the beginning (going by what the 'police cheif' guy says.)
Replicant #3 - Rutger Hauer's character
Replicant #4 - Daryl Hanna's character
Replicant #5 - The guy at the very beginning (gets shot in the head, or back, i think)
Replicant #6 - ??? - Gotta be Deckard
I honestly can't remember if the girl he shoots in the back (the performer) was counted as a replicant, but I don't believe she was.
From what I understand ( i never saw the original version, btw.. only the Director's Cut which is supposed to suck in comparison to the original) Olmos' character leaves the little origami forms as clues or something. Clues to what, no idea.
I could be (and probably am) wrong, but that's the conclusion I came up with.
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2002
- Posts
- 17,094
Roy G. Biv said:
It's a Unicorn.
That in conjunction with the dream sequence hints that Gaff knows more about Deckard than he lets on.
Buro Destruct
Formerly known as, Buro Destruct, , Southtown Stre
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2002
- Posts
- 9,058
Replcants that appear in the film:PUNJABEE said:
-Madame Zora, the snake charmer/dancer
-Roy Batty, the assumed "leader" of the fugitive replcants
-Pris, the ballet/gymnast girl, a pleasure unit
-Leon Kowalski, the first replicant we encounter during the film, injures lead Blade Runner Dave Holden
In the scene where Bryant is informing Deckard of his assignment, he firstly says there are "four skin jobs" on the loose. Minutes later he says six total replicants escaped, and that one died on the "electronic gate", leaving five total. The story goes that the "four skin jobs" was dialogue recorded after the film had been edited and was intended to cover up a script error in which the fifth replicant was supposed to have been "Mary", but due to whatever constraints, she was removed from the film alltogether. For whatever reason, Ridley Scott only uses half of the new dialogue, resulting in the inconsistency.
Most people like to think the numerous inconsistency issues with the film is Ridley Scott trying to toy with the audience's memory, much like the replicants in the film have completely falsified memories. I tend to think most of these inconcistencies are the aftermath of a film that was basically beset on all sides by ridiculous adversity, and simply arose from the fact that half of the people involved in the project were more than sorry for having tried to create it.
An easy way to assume Deckard is in fact a replicant, is during the scene where he washes his face in the bathroom while talking to Rachel. I think it follows the scene where Rachels shoots Leon. Twice in the scene, we see the redness (much like the red-eye effect in a photograph wherein the back of a person's retinas are illuminated by the flash) seen in replicant's eyes (Rachel and Pris are also seen with this redness in other parts of the film) also appear in Deckard's eyes. This effect is too conveinent and obvious (once you see it) to be an accident. Deckard is supposed to be a replicant. Although this revelation doesn't really change the message(s) and concept(s) explored within the film.
Last edited:
because its one of the most overrated movies of all time.
its decent, just not the godsend many internet nerds would have you believe.
sets and atmosphere are the only shining parts of the movie.
and of course ford and his trademark aweful acting. thats why we love him though.
its decent, just not the godsend many internet nerds would have you believe.
sets and atmosphere are the only shining parts of the movie.
and of course ford and his trademark aweful acting. thats why we love him though.
PUNJABEE said:
i usually hear the oposite, that the theatrical version sucked and the directors cut is where it's at. There were alot of versions. I saw all the directors cut but only a little of the theatrical release. Dekard narrates and there's an alternate ending.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 28,936
Technically, the director's cut is the original, since the theatrical ending and all the narration got added later at the request of the studio. Director's cut just took it all back out.PUNJABEE said:
This has been gone over a bunch of times in the other Blade Runner threads over the last couple years, but here goes:
The replicants have false memory implants to make them feel more real, including dreams. Deckard is able to convince Rachael she's a replicant, because he knows about her reoccurring dream about the spider, which she's never told to anyone -- he read it in her file.
Deckard has a reoccurring dream about a unicorn. You only see it once in the film, but it's done in a way that suggests it isn't the first time he's seen it. Deckard realises he is a replicant when he finds the unicorn origami Graf left him -- suggesting Graf knows Deckard's dreams because...etc., etc....
@feelgood: Overrated? I guess, maybe if you'd been hearing about it for 20 years before seeing it. If you'd just seen it out of the blue at the time, you might have thought it was better than you did.
Rubber Johnny
Banned
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Posts
- 1,307
Enhance.
Enhance.
Enhance.
Enhance.
I fucking LOVE Blade Runner.
Enhance.
Enhance.
Enhance.
I fucking LOVE Blade Runner.
same here.
i liked it thought it was a great sci-fi piece. and even watching it now creates a great remenicant feeling of the old tv movie of the week kinda vibe.
my main complaint was pacing it seemed to drag on a lot. and by the time it finally picks up it's over. too bad.
i liked it thought it was a great sci-fi piece. and even watching it now creates a great remenicant feeling of the old tv movie of the week kinda vibe.
my main complaint was pacing it seemed to drag on a lot. and by the time it finally picks up it's over. too bad.
Curt
apostate
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2004
- Posts
- 7,710
I love Blade Runner.
The scene that sticks out in my mind the most is when Dekkard is toying with that Photograph on the computer. Really cool use of technology for the time, and foreshadows now what we do as everday behavior.
Often when toying with Photoshop, to reveal something, or prove something from a High Res photo, I often recall Blade Runner and chuckle to myself.
The scene that sticks out in my mind the most is when Dekkard is toying with that Photograph on the computer. Really cool use of technology for the time, and foreshadows now what we do as everday behavior.
Often when toying with Photoshop, to reveal something, or prove something from a High Res photo, I often recall Blade Runner and chuckle to myself.
Rubber Johnny
Banned
- Joined
- May 26, 2005
- Posts
- 1,307
neo>all said:and people don't know why the hell you're laughing and assume the worst
it's probably because he's a little retarded. just a little though.
Blade Runner is hands down one of the best science fiction movies. I personally prefer the original version because I like to believe deckard isn't a replicant, it makes you wonder who is more human the replicants or deckard. A robot with emotions or a man without any.
Roy G. Biv
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2005
- Posts
- 35
If Deckard was one of the replicants that escaped with Pris and Rutger Hauer, that doesn't explain how he could've been a Blade Runner in the past.
OR is it possible that was just a falsified memory?
Personally I think its better to assume Deckard is a human so that analogies between the replicants and ourselves can be drawn. Does anyone knowif Ridley Scott has said either way because I now I think the movie leaves it up to the viewer's interpretation.
OR is it possible that was just a falsified memory?
Personally I think its better to assume Deckard is a human so that analogies between the replicants and ourselves can be drawn. Does anyone knowif Ridley Scott has said either way because I now I think the movie leaves it up to the viewer's interpretation.
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 28,936
Ridley Scott has said. But I don't think Deckard was one who escaped with Hauer, just lke Rachel wasn't an escapee either. It's been theorized that Deckard has been given the memories of the crippled former blade runner, Graf (Edward James Olmos) -- "You've done a man's job!"Roy G. Biv said:
- Joined
- Oct 12, 2003
- Posts
- 28,936
Not that book. Has about nothing in common with the movie except for a few names. It's like trying to gain insight into the Roger Moore movie by reading Flemming's 'the Spy Who Loved Me'.Tron 2.0 said: