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.
KingCracker wrote: So does this prove Deckard isnt a Replicant then? They only live so long and in that trailer hes obviously an old man. Am I missing something
Not necessarily. If I recall correctly the limited lifespan was introduced after replicants had already been developed and used around the place but had shown to start to develop their own emotional responses. In order to prevent that their lifetime was limited so they wouldn't have time to develop these responses. So Deckard could be an early development replicant without the time limit or indeed be a later model which was developed in order to dodge it, illegally.
Of course I could also be completely misremembering it
The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.
Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
After all, the Sean Young (!) character was a replicant that did NOT have the 'time limit'...limitation.
It's always been strongly implied that Decker was a replicant, but, who knows?
Actually:
Spoiler:
Wired: It was never on paper that Deckard is a replicant.
Scott:It was, actually. That’s the whole point of Gaff, the guy who makes origami and leaves little matchstick figures around. He doesn’t like Deckard, and we don’t really know why. If you take for granted for a moment that, let’s say, Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human. Gaff, at the very end, leaves an origami, which is a piece of silver paper you might find in a cigarette packet, and it’s a unicorn. Now, the unicorn in Deckard’s daydream tells me that Deckard wouldn’t normally talk about such a thing to anyone. If Gaff knew about that, it’s Gaff’s message to say, “I’ve read your file, mate.” That relates to Deckard’s first speech to Rachael when he says, “That’s not your imagination, that’s Tyrell’s niece’s daydream.” And he describes a little spider on a bush outside the window. The spider is an implanted piece of imagination. And therefore Deckard, too, has imagination and even history implanted in his head.
Wired: You shot the unicorn dream sequence as part of the original production. Why didn’t you include it in either the work print or the initial release?
Scott:As I said, there was too much discussion in the room. I wanted it. They didn’t want it. I said, “Well, it’s a fundamental part of the story.” And they said, “Well, isn’t it obvious that he’s a replicant?” And I said, “No more obvious than that he’s not a replicant at the end.” So, it’s a matter of choice, isn’t it?
Wired: When Deckard picks up the origami unicorn at the end of the movie, the look on his face says to me, “Oh, so Gaff was here, and he let Rachael live.” It doesn’t say, “Oh my God! Am I a replicant, too?”
Scott:No? Why is he nodding when he looks at this silver unicorn? I’m not going to send up a balloon. Doing the job he does, reading the files he reads on other replicants, Deckard may have wondered at one point, “Am I human or am I a replicant?” That’s in his innermost thoughts. I’m just giving you the fully fleshed-out possibility to justify that look at the end, where he kind of glints and looks angry. To me, it’s an affirmation. He nods, he agrees. “Ah hah! Gaff was here. I’ve been told.”
Wired: Harrison Ford is on record saying Deckard is not a replicant.
Scott:Yeah, but that was, like, 20 years ago. He’s given up now. He said, “OK, mate. You win! Anything! Just put it to rest.”
And:
Spoiler:
Hampton Francher (original screenwriter)- During a discussion panel with Ridley Scott for Blade Runner: The Final Cut he cuts Scott off during the replicant talk saying "Ridley's off, he's totally wrong!" and that "[Scott's] idea is too complex" and prefers the film to remain ambiguous saying "So the question [is Deckard a replicant] has to be an eternal question. It doesn't have an answer, and what I always say about that is what Pound says: 'Art that remains news is art in which the question 'what does it mean'' has no correct answer. I like asking the question [about Deckard] and I like it to be asked but I think it's nonsense to answer it...that's not interesting to me."
http://darthmojo.wordpress.com/2...
Harrison Ford- considers Deckard to be human, saying "that was the main area of contention between Ridley and myself at the time. I thought the audience deserved one human being on the screen that they could establish an emotional relationship with. I thought I had won ' agreement to that, but in fact I think he had a little reservation about that. I think he really wanted to have it both ways." http://media.bladezone.com/conte... (end of clip)
Philip K. Dick (author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, the book the film is based on)- he wrote the original role of Deckard as a human. "The purpose of this story as I saw it was that in his job of hunting and killing these replicants, Deckard becomes progressively dehumanized. At the same time, the replicants are being perceived as becoming more human. Finally, Deckard must question what he is doing, and really what is the essential difference between him and them? And, to take it one step further, who is he if there is no real difference?"
I'm with PKD and Harrison on this one, and that's how I've always thought about him in this film.
I wonder what they'll do in the 2049 movie though, set 30 years after the original?
(I think we already know!)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/16 12:44:33
Yeah, I always got that Scott *wanted* Deckard to be a replicant, but it didn't really work the way the film was put together. I do like that it was somewhat ambiguous, which plays into the whole motif of the film questioning what makes us human. I think Dick's approach is the strongest as it shows the contrast between a human losing what makes him human and replicants showing common fundamental elements of humanity and being purged for largely superficial reasons (IE obscure tests on eye reactions).
KingCracker wrote: So does this prove Deckard isnt a Replicant then? They only live so long and in that trailer hes obviously an old man. Am I missing something
He still could be. The opening scroll said that Nexus 6 models had the lifespan thing added in. My guess, though it could be wrong, would be that Deckard was a sort of "advanced prototype" of some sort, and not a Nexus 6. Too many people in the film recognized him, and he'd made a name for himself as a Blade Runner, so he'd been around a while.
However, I am with Alph on this one. Having read the book, Deckard is quite different from the film. Which means that I kind of hope that he is actually human in 2049, just so we don't get a "book world" vs. "film world" paradox going on.
I actually watched some videos on youtube before posting and honestly......it was split. So I thought about this massive collection of nerds we affectionately call DAKKA.
KingCracker wrote: I actually watched some videos on youtube before posting and honestly......it was split. So I thought about this massive collection of nerds we affectionately call DAKKA.
That's the beauty of the different mediums. . . the book is VERY clear on Deckard: he's a natural born, Grade-A hoo-man being.
The direction of the film left the director thinking it'd be cool to make that change, especially since other elements of the book were already written out (like Deckard's wife). In the case of BR, I do think it kinda cool to see the little details that were changed between book and film, I know others are not so keen on that sort of thing.
Funny enough Hampton is one of the two writers of BR 2049. If he feels the need to keep Deckards nature ambiguous then we'll have to wait and see. The other writer though i'm unsure about. Hopefully neither of them pull a Lindelhof with each others work on the script/screenplay.
On another note I always kind of felt BR was loosely based on PKDs story. Enough for it to sort of be it's own seperate thing. In the same way you might see a movie that says its based on true events, but you know that's a line of gak and some liberties were taken to change it so it works as a movie/entertainment piece.
And the only thing in the trailer that irked me was the seemingly large amount of action. If the action is handled in a good way, not too drawn out and repetitive. Then maybe it could work. But I still hope the movie has its slower moments, world building, noir elements etc. The first half of the trailer had the atmosphere nailed down. Then when the blah trailer music started it kind of unraveled.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/05/17 01:50:47
There are so many differences between the two that I have a hard time putting them both together. I read books 2 and 3 (by K W Jeter) and they were based on BR, not DADOES, so I've got this weird blend of versions of the story in my head.
This is even before I start thinking about which of the 47 cuts of the movie I prefer...
Well i've decided it's time to get a couple of these:
Seeing as how they are one of the most iconic props of the original movie, and are going to make at least a cameo in the new one. Doubt i'll drink from them too often though as this type of crystal glass has a bit of lead in it. It's still nice to have a collectible piece from a movie I like so much that still has a practical use though.
Thargrim wrote: And the only thing in the trailer that irked me was the seemingly large amount of action. If the action is handled in a good way, not too drawn out and repetitive. Then maybe it could work. But I still hope the movie has its slower moments, world building, noir elements etc. The first half of the trailer had the atmosphere nailed down. Then when the blah trailer music started it kind of unraveled.
Trailers these days are cut like that for any more. Even films like Passengers had fairly actiony trailers, because it appeals more to the general audience and puts butts in seats before word of mouth spreads. So it's a bit hard to judge the pace of the film by trailers these days.
Seeing as how they are one of the most iconic props of the original movie, and are going to make at least a cameo in the new one. Doubt i'll drink from them too often though as this type of crystal glass has a bit of lead in it. It's still nice to have a collectible piece from a movie I like so much that still has a practical use though.
I think you're safe as long as you're not storing your booze in the glass. So, chug away.
Anyway, I'm just hoping this movie will create some affordable prop replicas of the gun.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Seeing as how they are one of the most iconic props of the original movie, and are going to make at least a cameo in the new one. Doubt i'll drink from them too often though as this type of crystal glass has a bit of lead in it. It's still nice to have a collectible piece from a movie I like so much that still has a practical use though.
I think you're safe as long as you're not storing your booze in the glass. So, chug away.
Anyway, I'm just hoping this movie will create some affordable prop replicas of the gun.
Thats what I figured, i'd probably drink whatever is in it before any lead leaches into it. I also hope we get more props/replicas. I personally want a smaller scale model of the new spinner, and a decent model of the original one would be nice as well. Preferably good quality and painted though....I have enough 40k and other models on my hands to devote time into building a close replica of a spinner...the original spinner has a lot more details than say a SM rhino...lots more decals and stuff.
Thargrim wrote: Well i've decided it's time to get a couple of these:
Spoiler:
Seeing as how they are one of the most iconic props of the original movie, and are going to make at least a cameo in the new one. Doubt i'll drink from them too often though as this type of crystal glass has a bit of lead in it. It's still nice to have a collectible piece from a movie I like so much that still has a practical use though.
Have been toying with getting one of these for ages!
But they aren't cheap.. every time I get close to getting one, I stop as it just feels like too much of an extravagance
Thargrim wrote: Well i've decided it's time to get a couple of these:
Spoiler:
Seeing as how they are one of the most iconic props of the original movie, and are going to make at least a cameo in the new one. Doubt i'll drink from them too often though as this type of crystal glass has a bit of lead in it. It's still nice to have a collectible piece from a movie I like so much that still has a practical use though.
Have been toying with getting one of these for ages!
But they aren't cheap.. every time I get close to getting one, I stop as it just feels like too much of an extravagance
I'm honestly selling off a couple painted models to raise money for it, I figure Blade Runner is more important to me than a rhino and some half built stuff. But yeah imagine dropping/breaking one, that would be quite tragic.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/15 17:20:15
Interesting interview with ridley scott. In contrast to what BR2049s director said some months ago...ridley is now saying the movie will answer whether Deckard is or is not a replicant. Plus later next month one of the shorts/prologues by luke scott (ridleys son) is expected to release. These will likely be similar to those done for Alien Covenant...like the last supper thing and the one with shaw. I'm quite excited to see these...
The plot implication certainly seems to me like Letos character is trying to find a way to create replicants who can reproduce because perhaps humanity is going to die out on earth. The concept art mentions those hanging out in a certain slum are those who failed to make it off world. There is a chance those left on earth missed their chance to leave...and probably never will. Leto (Wallace) says the key to the future has been unearthed..bring it to me, this key is likely related to deckard or maybe rachel. You can see Wallace's henchwoman follows Gosling to Deckard, and successfully captures him. Not sure i'm buying into the whole Gosling is deckard/rachels son and the first human/replicant hybrid theory though..
Nexus 8...
This is a post apocalyptic city made using miniatures for the movie, very glad they didn't use CGI for this. Don't ask me where in the BR universe this is...but it does look like a nuclear bomb hit it or something.
The aerial city shots are going to be stunning.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/29 04:04:49
Thargrim wrote: The concept art mentions those hanging out in a certain slum are those who failed to make it off world. There is a chance those left on earth missed their chance to leave...and probably never will.
In the original book story, this was at the very least, heavily implied to begin with. . . Like, the majority of the actual elites, governmental structures and the important/wealthy people already got out of dodge, and everyone left did not meet those criteria. . . Plus, you have some characters who were deliberately left behind (the Sebastian/toy maker character from the movie) due to genetic defects, or even though they were wealthy enough, they couldn't be arsed to due to age (Tyrell himself). So yeah. . . I can definitely see them fleshing out this idea that humanity on earth is being left to rot intentionally. Afterall, why would a government care about people are are not physically where they are?
