Bladerunner

This forum is for discussing Chuck's videos as they are publicly released. And for bashing Neelix, but that's just repeating what I already said.
MaxWylde
Officer
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu May 11, 2017 2:25 am

Re: Bladerunner

Post by MaxWylde »

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?
That actually was something of a homage to a classic film noir film, The Big Sleep, starring Humphrey Bogart and Lauren Bacall, where Bogart plays private investigator Phillip Marlowe. In the film, Marlowe goes into a book store that's a front for a black-mail operation, and he adopts this rather snooty persona, puts the bill of his fedora upwards and wears glasses, and adjusts his voice. You see this a lot in detective fiction where the detective does this in order to break up his identity just enough so that if the opposition sees him, they won't immediately identify him (because the detective often doesn't know who's among the opposition).

In Blade Runner, Deckard goes in there knowing that potentially this is Zhora, one of his targets, and wants to lull her into a false sense of security so that he can kill her without much fuss. If he went in guns blazing, one, she might get away (which she does) and two, it might cause a lot of problems at the club because cops know that when there's gunplay, people tend to panic. Zhora is an assassin, and she's potentially much stronger and much faster than Deckard is, so he has only one chance in that dressing room. Also, I'm sure he's completely wasted from all the booze he drinks.

My big issue with Blade Runner is Ridley Scott not leaving well enough alone. I could understand him removing Deckard's narration, but by declaring outright that he's a replicant wrecks the ambiguity. But, more importantly, if he is at all a replicant, that issue isn't really something of a consideration throughout the film. Meaning, okay, if they want to make it ambiguous, Scott could've provided more clues. The thing that kills the idea is the notion that the cops would use Deckard if he were a replicant, because by giving him the Voight-Kampff machine, they risk him using it on himself, and if he does, what then? He's in a position to kill Gaff if he has to, skip town, or worse.....go to the press. But, I'm sure Scott would say you can't trust what he's putting on screen.
User avatar
Admiral X
Captain
Posts: 2654
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:37 am

Re: Bladerunner

Post by Admiral X »

The ending lacks meaning if Deckard was a replicant.
"Black care rarely sits behind a rider whose pace is fast enough."
-TR
User avatar
Robovski
Captain
Posts: 1217
Joined: Sat Mar 11, 2017 8:32 pm
Location: Checked out of here

Re: Bladerunner

Post by Robovski »

You can't trust Ridley and his cut, he added footage of another movie of his that was scrapped to make his cockmamy idea the Deckard is a replicant work. Ridley is good at making other people's stories look good, he just needs to keep that storycraft to himself.
User avatar
PerrySimm
Captain
Posts: 689
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 2:37 am

Re: Bladerunner

Post by PerrySimm »

The 80s are cool again and its foundational cinematic work, Blade Runner, will naturally be strip-mined for whatever's left of worth. (What's next, Enemy Mine?)

What's critical is that it speaks to something human in these dehumanizing times. Otherwise, poof. A footnote in a disappointing cinematic decade, notable mainly for its lack of risk-taking with the goods while betting the farm on hypersegmented demographic marketing saving the bottom line.

On the one hand, I'd prefer to not pay to see Blade Runner 2049 in the theatre. On the other, I suppose I'd better see the theatrical cut before it evapourates, because Ridley Scott is never going to stop "making" the movie.
UGxlYXNlIHByb3ZpZGUgeW91ciBjaGFsbGVuZ2UgcmVzcG9uc2UgZm9yIFJFRCA5NC4K
griffeytrek
Officer
Posts: 118
Joined: Mon Feb 13, 2017 5:28 am

Re: Bladerunner

Post by griffeytrek »

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.
But that's what Ridley Scott is great at. He builds deep layered believable real fantasy worlds. Look at the set detailing in Alien. How every single thing in it was perfect. You never questioned for a moment that this was a lived in real space ship. With all it's grunge and wear and warts and clanks and condensation. It wasn't Star Trek. He perfectly captured what we all knew the next evolution to space travel would actually look like.

But then they let him try and add words and stories, and we get things like Prometheus. There is a reason why the studios so often took back final edit of his movies from him. And honestly there is a reason why so often those studio edits seem actually better than his "Directors Cuts". Call me a heathen but I hate both his Directors Cuts of Blade Runner and Alien. I think each takes something away from the movies.
Post Reply