Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Anybody can confirm this? I caught tail end of the news saying Ford is working that one to alongside Star Wars?
Proud Member of the Infidels of OIF/OEF
No longer defending the US Military or US Gov't. Just going to ""**feed into your fears**"" with Duffel Blog Did not fight my way up on top the food chain to become a Vegan...
Warning: Stupid Allergy
Once you pull the pin, Mr. Grenade is no longer your friend
DE 6700
Harlequin 2500
RIP Muhammad Ali.
Jihadin, Scorched Earth 791. Leader of the Pork Eating Crusader. Alpha
On the one hand, Id love to see what happens to Deckard. on the other, why mess with a classic?
Why mess with a classic? This is Hollywood we are talking about. They’ve been mining our nostalgia to get us into the theater for years. A new idea/movie is a rare thing these days. They are much more comfortable with a re-boot or know factors then anything original.
Alex C wrote: I've tried to watch the original multiple times and fell asleep every time.
I really want to like it, but it's just so slow and boring to me.
I love everything about the movie except I don't get why the main villain saves Deckard at the end, other than maybe since he was dying he learned the value of life and decided to help character because of it or he knew Deckard was a replicant and doesn't allow himself to kill other
replicants (only kills humans). Otherwise the main villain saving Deckard seems kind of out of character considering he was portrayed as this violent character throughout the movie who didn't hesitate to kill people, so him all of the sudden saving a life seems jarring to me.
The version I saw the movie ended with Deckard and his girlfriend being hunted down by a blade runner and the scene ends with them entering an elevator with their future uncertain, the movie seemed fine to me I think you guys are being unnecessarily harsh on the movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also this seems like a bad idea for a sequel considering it wasn't a box office success.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 01:37:54
The version I saw the movie ended with Deckard and his girlfriend being hunted down by a blade runner and the scene ends with them entering an elevator with their future uncertain, the movie seemed fine to me I think you guys are being unnecessarily harsh on the movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also this seems like a bad idea for a sequel considering it wasn't a box office success.
Did you even read my post? I'm being harsh on the potential for a sequel.
I'm saying there doesn't need to be a sequel because Deckard is dead. He was a replicant. The video shows him picking up the origami unicorn, which is a sign the Police officer knows that he is a Replicant. It's never really stated whether he is a Blade Runner or not.
It's also just a theory that he was a replicant, don't state it as fact as its not. So your assumption that Deckard is dead could be spot on, or totally false as he may infact actually be human.
Also the unicorn could easily just be the officer letting Deckard know he is coming after the woman, who we know is a replicant.
PKD had a lot more books than Blade Runner (Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?).
Why not make a few of them into decent movies?
Ubik is circling around as a script since forever.
The Man In The High Castle has a pretty good What If setting.
The amount and quality of reboots, remakes and unnecessary sequels and prequels produced in Hollywood got really annoying over the last 5-10 years.
The version I saw the movie ended with Deckard and his girlfriend being hunted down by a blade runner and the scene ends with them entering an elevator with their future uncertain, the movie seemed fine to me I think you guys are being unnecessarily harsh on the movie.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also this seems like a bad idea for a sequel considering it wasn't a box office success.
Did you even read my post? I'm being harsh on the potential for a sequel.
I'm saying there doesn't need to be a sequel because Deckard is dead. He was a replicant. The video shows him picking up the origami unicorn, which is a sign the Police officer knows that he is a Replicant. It's never really stated whether he is a Blade Runner or not.
Oh, sorry I interpreted your post as being about your disappointed with the various versions of the Blade Runner movie but now I know that's not what it's about, I'll admit to being wrong.
Alex C wrote: I've tried to watch the original multiple times and fell asleep every time.
I really want to like it, but it's just so slow and boring to me.
I love everything about the movie except I don't get why the main villain saves Deckard at the end, other than maybe since he was dying he learned the value of life and decided to help character because of it or he knew Deckard was a replicant and doesn't allow himself to kill other
replicants (only kills humans). Otherwise the main villain saving Deckard seems kind of out of character considering he was portrayed as this violent character throughout the movie who didn't hesitate to kill people, so him all of the sudden saving a life seems jarring to me.
Ridley Scott explains the reason in the commentary. Batty is quite happy to let Deckard die, but just before Batty lets him go, Deckard spits in defiance and Batty respects Deckard's warrior spirit, from warrior to another. Well, at least that's the explanation Scott gives. It's quite hard to see that bit, to be honest, but it is there.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
Formosa wrote: It's also just a theory that he was a replicant, don't state it as fact as its not. So your assumption that Deckard is dead could be spot on, or totally false as he may infact actually be human.
Also the unicorn could easily just be the officer letting Deckard know he is coming after the woman, who we know is a replicant.
Except for the fact that it's Deckard that dreams about the unicorn.
Alex C wrote: I've tried to watch the original multiple times and fell asleep every time.
I really want to like it, but it's just so slow and boring to me.
I love everything about the movie except I don't get why the main villain saves Deckard at the end, other than maybe since he was dying he learned the value of life and decided to help character because of it or he knew Deckard was a replicant and doesn't allow himself to kill other
replicants (only kills humans). Otherwise the main villain saving Deckard seems kind of out of character considering he was portrayed as this violent character throughout the movie who didn't hesitate to kill people, so him all of the sudden saving a life seems jarring to me.
Ridley Scott explains the reason in the commentary. Batty is quite happy to let Deckard die, but just before Batty lets him go, Deckard spits in defiance and Batty respects Deckard's warrior spirit, from warrior to another. Well, at least that's the explanation Scott gives. It's quite hard to see that bit, to be honest, but it is there.
Really...that's what he said? I always took that scene as an extension of all the obvious Christ metaphors going on. Roy saves and forgives Deckard while "dying for his sins," with his death serving as a lesson. This makes more sense if you consider Deckard to be a replicant.
Alex C wrote: I've tried to watch the original multiple times and fell asleep every time.
I really want to like it, but it's just so slow and boring to me.
I love everything about the movie except I don't get why the main villain saves Deckard at the end, other than maybe since he was dying he learned the value of life and decided to help character because of it or he knew Deckard was a replicant and doesn't allow himself to kill other
replicants (only kills humans). Otherwise the main villain saving Deckard seems kind of out of character considering he was portrayed as this violent character throughout the movie who didn't hesitate to kill people, so him all of the sudden saving a life seems jarring to me.
Ridley Scott explains the reason in the commentary. Batty is quite happy to let Deckard die, but just before Batty lets him go, Deckard spits in defiance and Batty respects Deckard's warrior spirit, from warrior to another. Well, at least that's the explanation Scott gives. It's quite hard to see that bit, to be honest, but it is there.
Really...that's what he said? I always took that scene as an extension of all the obvious Christ metaphors going on. Roy saves and forgives Deckard while "dying for his sins," with his death serving as a lesson. This makes more sense if you consider Deckard to be a replicant.
Don't shoot the messenger
If you listen to Scott's DVD commentary, you will hear words to those effects.
"Our crops will wither, our children will die piteous
deaths and the sun will be swept from the sky. But is it true?" - Tom Kirby, CEO, Games Workshop Ltd
I'd heard that Roy realizes that he is dying and that no-one will remember him after he is gone (all his friends are dead). He saves Deckard and starts talking about his memories in an effort to make sure one person remembers him after his death. Roy would kill anyone and everyone who got in the way of him achieving his goal, and his goal was to live a normal human lifespan. He was fighting against death itself. Eventually, he realizes that he cannot escape death (no-one can) and that he must accept his own mortality, but there is a way of living beyond his alloted years, and that is if someone remembers him and what he did. Roy Batty can't live forever, but Roy Batty can live on as long as someone knows that Roy Batty was a person and what Roy Batty saw and did. At the end, the only person Roy has to pass himself off to is Deckard, as imperfect a solution as that is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/08/29 15:50:47
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
I saw the movie more than once. Never thought Deckard was replicant. Years later the director pulls douche creative type move and says it was obviuos he was replicant.
I choose to believe that he is a crappy director, and Deckard is alive somewhere with his replicant girlfriend.
Since any sequel with Harrison Ford as old man Deckard would confirm both of beliefs on the matter, I approve of a sequel
I'd heard that Roy realizes that he is dying and that no-one will remember him after he is gone (all his friends are dead). He saves Deckard and starts talking about his memories in an effort to make sure one person remembers him after his death. Roy would kill anyone and everyone who got in the way of him achieving his goal, and his goal was to live a normal human lifespan. He was fighting against death itself. Eventually, he realizes that he cannot escape death (no-one can) and that he must accept his own mortality, but there is a way of living beyond his alloted years, and that is if someone remembers him and what he did. Roy Batty can't live forever, but Roy Batty can live on as long as someone knows that Roy Batty was a person and what Roy Batty saw and did. At the end, the only person Roy has to pass himself off to is Deckard, as imperfect a solution as that is.
Well said.
As I kid I remember thinking that being on his death bed, Roy had a new found appreciation of life, and that killing Deckard didn't really accomplish anything, while saving him did.
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 Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die…
I like both versions of the film, both with and without the talkover.
The first release (talkover) is very ambiguous as to what Deckard is, and therrefore implies he is human due to the lack of evidence to the contrary.
The directors cut added in the unicorn dream sequence, changing the meaning of Gant's comments, which in the original mean - I will let her go, because she is doomed anyway. In the directors cut it means - I will let you both go, because you are doomed anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 16:26:38
n'oublie jamais - It appears I now have to highlight this again.
It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion. By the juice of the brew my thoughts aquire speed, my mind becomes strained, the strain becomes a warning. It is by tea alone I set my mind in motion.
I think it depends on which cut you see (I mean there is a couple of hours worth of deleted scenes...). The director's gone on the record as saying he is and isn't a replicant. Of the cuts I've watched though there is one which ends with Deckard's girlfriend saying "we were made for each other" and Deckard acting unconformable afterwards before cutting to the credits. Yes though, at least in the book (and probably the film too, I can't remember every scene), the replicants have an expiry date, so given that its been how many years since the last movie I'm wondering what bit of plot magickery will be written in to explain that.
Dick did have some interesting concepts that would work well as films yes. ...Though personally I find his writing style to be a chore to read (let's use ten words where one would do). Adaptations of his works tend to be better than the actual books to me, because well, at least those make a degree of sense (IIRC in the book the replicants make an identical police station to Deckard's then spend a chapter convincing him he's a replicant or something. ...Weird scene).
Eugh, can't we just have a copy of Blade Runner with all of the deleted scenes included? Youknow, so the thing wasn't the mess that it is at the moment (where you have the 'definitive cut', but then have to go trawl Youtube for some other important scenes that add more depth to the movie- all the extra ones with guy hunting Deckard are great).
Well, it seems clear enough that Scott originally shot the movie open to the idea that Deckard is a replicant. Material from the director's cut clearly points to it. The theatrical release suggests that he had a change of heart at some point, because all the right material got culled.
It's crazy how hard it is to get the straight dope, though. Remember the "but someone would" scene in the bathroom where Deckard's eyes are obviously shining replicant-style (even though Ridley fogged things to hide it somewhat)? Scott's said that the eyes were intentional, Ford's said it wasn't.
Ultimately all this means that it's ambiguous, which may be where Scott wanted it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 17:29:05
gorgon wrote: Well, it seems clear enough that Scott originally shot the movie open to the idea that Deckard is a replicant. Material from the director's cut clearly points to it. The theatrical release suggests that he had a change of heart at some point, because all the right material got culled.
It's crazy how hard it is to get the straight dope, though. Remember the "but someone would" scene in the bathroom where Deckard's eyes are obviously shining replicant-style (even though Ridley fogged things to hide it somewhat)? Scott's said that the eyes were intentional, Ford's said it wasn't.
Ultimately all this means that it's ambiguous, which may be where Scott wanted it.
The eyes are easy enough to explain away as replacement eyes. Remember David Lo Pan? "I only do eyes"...? There is no way that one man in his little shop supplies all of the eyes for all of the Replicants (he states that he designed the eyes for the Batty-series of Replicants) on all of the offworld colonies. So the shop must do business a different way. He could be selling replacement eyes for the artificial animals we see in the movie (like the snake) but some of those eyes in his shop look decidely human. Clearly, Lo Pan sells replacement eyes to people who have suffered eye-related injuries during their lives. considering how dangerous being a Blade Runner is, it is possible Deckard suffered an eye injury in his past and got some cyber eyes installed. Because cyberpunk.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/08/29 17:45:44
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?)
Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 16k+ 
4k 
4k Points
Competition Index
Emperor's Eagles (undergoing Chapter reorganization)
Caledonian 95th (undergoing regimental reorganization)
Thousands Sons (undergoing Warband re--- wait, are any of my 40K armies playable?) 
And if you're drinkin' well, you know that you're my friend and I say "I think I'll have myself a beer" 