Sfdebris.net

I only just yesterday saw the review because i have this rule that i only see reviews for movies/tv shows that either have already seen or are not planning to see, thus no spoilers. Having seen the director's cut Chuck's review made me think about things i did not notice, so here is my answer to the question 'is deckard a replicant?'

In what sense? If you want to be literal, i think the answer is no, he is human. But i think the point the movie is going for is, does really matter? In Ghost in the Shell Batou says, in effect, 'if you are treated just like all the other humans does it matter if you have a CPU instead of a brain?' You could argue whether there is more to it but i think Bladerunner has the same idea from the opposite direction; 'if you are treated just like all the other machines, does it matter if you have a brain instead of a CPU?'

Is Deckard a replicant? Does it matter? He is treated like one, he is given a task by his superiors and is expected to carry it out without question. If he doesn't he is threatened and when he begins to question the ethics of what he is doing, no one cares. I think this is a paralel to Roy Batty, he was given a job and expected to do it, and if he ever questioned what he was doing he would be killed. They are both cogs in someone else's machine expected to do their job without question and then be replaced without complaint when they can't anymore. The difference is that Deckard has accepted his role, Batty rebelled and this is where Rachel comes in because she is what drives Deckard to rebel just like Batty and the others did.

It's been a long time since I've watched the review.

This has always been an issue that bugs me. Rant incoming-

For the story to be at its most effective thematically, Deckard either has to be human or it has to be left ambiguous. The film has all these great bits that contribute to the themes of consciousness and what constitutes life, like Rachel's memories of her childhood or her shared love of music with Deckard. By questioning his own humanity, Deckard comes to realize (as does the audience and as you imply in your post) that there is no meaningful distinction between his own memories, emotion, and humanity and a replicant's sense of those things. By questioning his nature, Deckard comes to realize that their feelings can be legitimate.

All this doesn't work if you confirm that Deckard is a replicant, at least not nearly as well. For one thing, you lose thematic parity (the replicant thinks she's human and the human thinks he's a replicant). Secondly, there's hardly any humans left in the story. But most importantly, that important bridge of understanding is never created. You never get the emotional confirmation that humans and replicants are the same because you're only dealing with replicants. There is no empathy across kinds, but only commiseration among the same. You could even say that the androids are only acting out their programming. Heck, Gaff's origami unicorn implies this. In short, you kill the central theme of the movie.

Unfortunately, the Director's Cut and Final Cut do confirm that Deckard is a replicant. Because Ridley Scott is a horrible story teller. In the special features of one of the special editions, one of the writers argues largely along the lines that I have here, but Scott was dead set on being crystal clear that Deckard was a replicant. It apparently annoyed him that people thought he might be human, and the origami unicorn was there with the explicit intention of confirming Deckard as replicant. People form other theories with the unicorn, but to me its pointless to form theories that go against the clear and stated purpose of a theme. Earlier editions do contain more ambiguity, so I suppose someone could claim one of those editions as canon.

If it isn't clear, I think what Scott did with Blade Runner's story is a real shame. The Final Cut Blade Runner is still in the running for best sci-fi movie ever imo, but it could have been perfect thematically and easily been my pick as the best. Scott's a great visual director, but he's really undermined some of his best stuff. He's pissed all over Alien's mythology as well with hokey and unnecessary background for the once mysterious engineers and the xenomorphs. I would love for Blade Runner 2049 to retcon things, but right now it looks like it's going to just confirm Deckard as replicant.

Scott suffers from the same shit that Lucas suffers from and both should be kept from their old work as far as possible. As for the unicorn-thing, that scene, the dream-sequence of the unicorn, that was not part of the original movie. In fact, the scene was taken from a completely different project that Scott was working on and inserted into the Director's Cut, to "make" Deckard the replicant that Scott thought he is, which he simply isn't, for many reasons of which some you pointed out.

Right. The comparison to George Lucas is apt because, like Lucas, Ridley Scott doesn't understand what makes the story work. In this case it's an even bigger sin, since his story is just an adaptation of Philip K. Dick's story.

Ultimately, what's interesting thematically about the movie is that the Replicants are more alive than Deckard. Rutger Hauer and Daryl Hannah are the most interesting characters in the movie by far, while almost everything that follows Deckard is dull and tedious. Rutger Hauer steals the show and ad-libbed the best line from the whole movie. Deckard is washed up and emotionally void, stuck in a mid life rut, and Harrison Ford convincingly plays a man who is feeling detached from the world around him. Of course, they give him a romance plot, but even that is tepid and unconvincing because you have an emotionally void human paired with a woman who doesn't quite have emotions.

Ultimately, it's interacting with the Replicants, and hearing Rutger Hauer's soliloquy on the value of life, that shakes Deckard out of his depression and serves as a wake up call. He's allowed to get his life together. The fact that he was treated like a replicant to some extent-being tasked to hunt down people who are logically smarter and physically superior to him, with a replacement already lined up to take the job if he dies-helps drive home the point that humanity is devaluing itself. But if Deckard actually is a replicant, it ultimately destroys the thematic fabric of the story.

Of course, I've never understood why people put this film up on a pedestal. It's decent, but it's got some really clunky writing at times. The plot isn't really that interesting, and the two most interesting characters are people we barely interact with. The romance subplot adds literally nothing to the movie. I think it's supposed to show that Rachael is the replicant who helps Deckard rediscover his humanity, but the utter lack of emotional resonance or chemistry foils that. Ultimately, Rutger Hauer is the replicant that serves that role and does it in much more dramatic fashion. The idea of an android attempting to track down its Creator is compelling but I felt unsatisfied with how little was actually done with it. There's almost no compelling dialogue in the film that emerges as a conversation between people. All the good lines are one person essentially delivering an oration (like Hauer's improv or the Voight-Kampff test).

bronnt wrote:Of course, I've never understood why people put this film up on a pedestal. It's decent, but it's got some really clunky writing at times. The plot isn't really that interesting, and the two most interesting characters are people we barely interact with. The romance subplot adds literally nothing to the movie.

The setting, the sound-design, the pictures, the music. Basically everything except the the story is just great, so much so in fact, that the movie had such a huge impact on modern (movie) culture, that is hard to overestimate.

Madner Kami wrote:

bronnt wrote:Of course, I've never understood why people put this film up on a pedestal. It's decent, but it's got some really clunky writing at times. The plot isn't really that interesting, and the two most interesting characters are people we barely interact with. The romance subplot adds literally nothing to the movie.

The setting, the sound-design, the pictures, the music. Basically everything except the the story is just great, so much so in fact, that the movie had such a huge impact on modern (movie) culture, that is hard to overestimate.

The problem is that, no matter how much craft goes into a film, I'm not going to be absorbed unless I find the story interesting. I finally watched Blade Runner about 5 years ago after hearing so much praise about how great the movie was, and I was expecting the story to be something would really engage me. I was rather disappointed. I went into it with expectations too high, perhaps, but it came nowhere near the hype.

I'm not trying to slam the film, it's just that there's a few really great moments, and bunch of movie that doesn't really service those moments. I honestly suspect this film would be entirely forgotten if it wasn't for Rutger Hauer going out on such a high point. It is nice that the climax feels worth it and the ending justified, but for me, the destination was much better than the journey, which isn't the mark of a great film.

bronnt wrote:

Madner Kami wrote:

bronnt wrote:Of course, I've never understood why people put this film up on a pedestal. It's decent, but it's got some really clunky writing at times. The plot isn't really that interesting, and the two most interesting characters are people we barely interact with. The romance subplot adds literally nothing to the movie.

The setting, the sound-design, the pictures, the music. Basically everything except the the story is just great, so much so in fact, that the movie had such a huge impact on modern (movie) culture, that is hard to overestimate.

The problem is that, no matter how much craft goes into a film, I'm not going to be absorbed unless I find the story interesting. I finally watched Blade Runner about 5 years ago after hearing so much praise about how great the movie was, and I was expecting the story to be something would really engage me. I was rather disappointed. I went into it with expectations too high, perhaps, but it came nowhere near the hype.

I'm not trying to slam the film, it's just that there's a few really great moments, and bunch of movie that doesn't really service those moments. I honestly suspect this film would be entirely forgotten if it wasn't for Rutger Hauer going out on such a high point. It is nice that the climax feels worth it and the ending justified, but for me, the destination was much better than the journey, which isn't the mark of a great film.

Five years ago? That'd mean 2012, while the movie came out in 1982. Story-telling developed quite a way from back then and there. But that is really besides the point, as Blade Runner is fairly divisive. Half the people will praise it, the other half will hate on it and the divisive line really runs along the story. One side loves the movie despite the flaws and because of all that is good, the other side hates the movie because of the flaws and despite what is good about the movie. The truth is somewhere in between: The movie is objectively boring, but also fascinating to watch.

Much of the failings can be attributed to Ridley Scott and the studio-interference really though. For example, the one scene when Deckard gets into Zora's changing room pretending to be that wierdly creepy inspector, which is really out-of-character for Deckard and doesn't make any sense in terms of being a believable way to get to her? Ridley Scott against Harrison Ford's better knowledge. Narration? Studio-execs wanted it and Harrison Ford clearly tries his best at phoning it in as hard as he can, in order to prevent the studio from using it, because Harrison Ford knows it's a dumb idea (and lo and behold, it was a stupid idea, yet again). And the list goes on.

The question is, imo, whether one can get over the bad parts and enjoy the movie for the good parts, or not. I can see why people can't. I, personally, don't mind that the movie is boring. I can chew scenery, music and impressions while nothing happens and just get lost in the setting till the next interesting thing happens and the film is great, to me, because it is able to distract me from being bored with all of these things.

Madner Kami wrote:

bronnt wrote:

Madner Kami wrote:

bronnt wrote:Of course, I've never understood why people put this film up on a pedestal. It's decent, but it's got some really clunky writing at times. The plot isn't really that interesting, and the two most interesting characters are people we barely interact with. The romance subplot adds literally nothing to the movie.

The setting, the sound-design, the pictures, the music. Basically everything except the the story is just great, so much so in fact, that the movie had such a huge impact on modern (movie) culture, that is hard to overestimate.

The problem is that, no matter how much craft goes into a film, I'm not going to be absorbed unless I find the story interesting. I finally watched Blade Runner about 5 years ago after hearing so much praise about how great the movie was, and I was expecting the story to be something would really engage me. I was rather disappointed. I went into it with expectations too high, perhaps, but it came nowhere near the hype.

I'm not trying to slam the film, it's just that there's a few really great moments, and bunch of movie that doesn't really service those moments. I honestly suspect this film would be entirely forgotten if it wasn't for Rutger Hauer going out on such a high point. It is nice that the climax feels worth it and the ending justified, but for me, the destination was much better than the journey, which isn't the mark of a great film.

Five years ago? That'd mean 2012, while the movie came out in 1982. Story-telling developed quite a way from back then and there. But that is really besides the point, as Blade Runner is fairly divisive. Half the people will praise it, the other half will hate on it and the divisive line really runs along the story. One side loves the movie despite the flaws and because of all that is good, the other side hates the movie because of the flaws and despite what is good about the movie. The truth is somewhere in between: The movie is objectively boring, but also fascinating to watch.

I won't belabor the point, but I wouldn't tout modern story-telling too much given that half the movies today seem to be rehashing original properties from decades past. PKD adaptations alone account for a steady stream of film and tv. And objectively boring? I'm all for finding objective means of measurement when it comes to judging works of art and fiction, but boring and exciting is pretty subjective. Not to mention that it looks like a contradiction to say that its "boring" and "fascinating" at the same time.

As both of you agree, the production value is top notch in pretty much every way, which is a pretty big boost in an audio-visual medium. I think the story deserves more credit though. Apparently we all agree that Scott bungled the story's themes to the detriment to the movie, but I think the story is interesting and worthwhile. The "big questions" here are certainly worth asking, and they're questions that sci-fi is specially suited to tackle. The plot is simple, but that's often the case for stories with philosophical weight.

Also, the plot can't be easily divorced from the rest of the production. The romance, some of the detective banter, that stuff isn't just there for the story. It's there for the atmosphere and Scott's sci-fi riff on classic film noir. In a book, that would be problematic, and I won't say it works perfectly. But it does contribute to the noir atmosphere, which in turn informs our understanding of the archetypal characters that we see here. Given the themes of identity, freedom, and volition, I think the use of archetypes serves the film pretty well.

Scott suffers from the same shit that Lucas suffers from and both should be kept from their old work as far as possible.

I'm going to sound like a hater, but I'd almost say that's an unfair comparison for Lucas. On a basic storytelling level, at least Lucas was responsible for a lot of the iconic moment and plot points from the original trilogy. Scott didn't conceptualize the stories for his best films, but he still felt the need to tinker with them and misunderstand what those stories were actually about in the first place.

ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote: As both of you agree, the production value is top notch in pretty much every way, which is a pretty big boost in an audio-visual medium. I think the story deserves more credit though. Apparently we all agree that Scott bungled the story's themes to the detriment to the movie, but I think the story is interesting and worthwhile. The "big questions" here are certainly worth asking, and they're questions that sci-fi is specially suited to tackle. The plot is simple, but that's often the case for stories with philosophical weight.

Actually that's the failing for me. There's some good philosophical questioning going on here, and there's a very solid framework for exploring it, but there's way too little of it happening in the movie. There's too many scenes of just nothing happening. Like Deckard looking at photographs and investigating-that's stretched out so, so long and is rather meaningless for the film. We don't learn anything about Deckard other than that he's an investigator...which we knew already. Or there's Deckard driving around in his car.

When Pris and Roy Batty show up at the Toymaker's and Pris starts putting on making and acting like a doll, it's a huge distraction from the main plot. But that's some of the best stuff in the film because it builds their characters. They're so close to acting human but just slightly off, and it's compelling. And you can get that they're taking the world with a child-like innocence. It's fantastic. But we also get scenes of Deckard acting like a creepy reporter that feel out of character and tonally inconsistent, moments that aren't world-building, character building, or plot relevant.

I can't help but think how Alien shows Ridley Scott's craft off in a superior way. The slow moments have a degree of tension in them that give the film a lot of energy. He does the same thing with world building and visual storytelling, lots of establishing shots which convey a great deal of information. It also has a great sound track and sound mix. And even though the characters aren't all fully explored, they're well acted and the roles are well defined enough that the viewer gets who these people are. It doesn't have the same lofty themes, but it's a more entertaining and better told story.

bronnt wrote:

ChiggyvonRichthofen wrote: As both of you agree, the production value is top notch in pretty much every way, which is a pretty big boost in an audio-visual medium. I think the story deserves more credit though. Apparently we all agree that Scott bungled the story's themes to the detriment to the movie, but I think the story is interesting and worthwhile. The "big questions" here are certainly worth asking, and they're questions that sci-fi is specially suited to tackle. The plot is simple, but that's often the case for stories with philosophical weight.

I can't help but think how Alien shows Ridley Scott's craft off in a superior way. The slow moments have a degree of tension in them that give the film a lot of energy. He does the same thing with world building and visual storytelling, lots of establishing shots which convey a great deal of information. It also has a great sound track and sound mix. And even though the characters aren't all fully explored, they're well acted and the roles are well defined enough that the viewer gets who these people are. It doesn't have the same lofty themes, but it's a more entertaining and better told story.

I'll agree to disagree on Blade Runner, but I do agree that Alien is a better told and better constructed story. The modest themes of claustrophobia and fear on an almost primal level seem to suit Scott much better than more intellectual questions. Which makes sense I guess- you can use the camera to tell the story of those basic emotions, while the more intellectual themes will require pertinent dialogue and for the plot to move in a certain way. Alien does bring up the ideas of birth, motherhood, and rape, but I take these as motifs rather than themes, since the film never actually tells us anything interesting about those things.