Seymour_Gibbs on 8/8/2001 at 13:49
Ive never seen it either, but I can still tell you that
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Spoiler:</font><DIV STYLE="background-color:#000080"><FONT color="#000080"> Deckard is a replicant </FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
Because ive only been told the ending a few hundred times :mad:
Keeper Mallinson on 8/8/2001 at 17:03
What's this movie about?
LesserFollies on 8/8/2001 at 18:31
BEST MOVIE EVER
iCEE on 8/8/2001 at 18:50
If you liked the movie Blade Runner try the game. I loved it :) Blade Runner is one of the best movies I ever saw ! Too bad they don't make 'em that way anymore :(
Strangeblue on 8/8/2001 at 19:59
Quote:
Originally posted by Keeper Mallinson:
<STRONG>What's this movie about?</STRONG>
Ahh, now, Mallinson, that is a bigger question than you think. Dick is one of those writers whose work is so deeply layered that you can take it on many levels. Its part of the reason I think true fans of Dick's are generally disappointed with movie adaptations. Films take the basic plot-kernel (which I grant you: Dick was a master of the thought-provoking kernel) and then build a 90-minute action flick on. The deeper philosphical strains like the meaning and definition of humanity, the reality of thought and memory and their effect on personality, the deeper questions of morality, mortality, sapience, freedom, love... these are recurring in Dick's work.
So, what is Blade Runner about? Depends, really, on how deeply you want to look at what Scott was able to make of the basic ideas he was allowed to maintian from the much-more-complex original story. Underneath, IMO, he preserved Dick's questions about what is "human" and the desire for life and freedom in the face of despair and hopelessness."Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" made a great deal of it's point on the idea that only the truly "human" dream, that dreams are a function and indication not only of sapience, but of the
thing which defines us as greater than our parts, thus, if androids can dream, they are surely as human as you and I, but their dreams may be unlike ours. That which is "human" in not always humane, nor is it always "Humanity".
On the other hand, maybe it's just a very cool action flick about a man (let us leave that word, for now) who chases down rogue androids. The man is confused by his position in an increasingly dysfunctional world which causes him to question the nature of "humanity" as he pursues these "inhuman" creatures who supposedly threaten humans.
Or, I could, as is often the case, be blowing air.
bleh.. I hate it when I try to be deep while carrying on 6 conversations at the same time....look at all those typos...
[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Strangeblue ]
Fuegan on 8/8/2001 at 21:05
Star Wars was a film for the kids though, really. And still is. Which does really set it aside from Blade Runner in many ways, almost so much that you can't really compare them properly :)
Phydeaux on 8/8/2001 at 21:26
I loved Blade Runner, and have seen it several times. But it's only been the Director's Cut. Is it worth it to watch the original (if I can find it)?
kostoffj on 8/8/2001 at 21:41
Quote:
Originally posted by Phydeaux:
<STRONG>I loved Blade Runner, and have seen it several times. But it's only been the Director's Cut. Is it worth it to watch the original (if I can find it)?</STRONG>
Not really, but that's MHO. The original cut adds a Deckard voice over, is missing a couple of scenes, and has a happy ending.
Keeper Mallinson on 8/8/2001 at 22:32
Sounds really good. I'll do a raincheck on it, thanks Blue!
Pseudonymouse on 8/8/2001 at 23:49
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Spoiler:</font><DIV STYLE="background-color:#000080"><FONT color="#000080"> I've never been entirely certain that Deckard is a replicant. The origami unicorn is far from conclusive, if you ask me, because it requires someone to be able to accurately predict a replicant's dreams. To be able to do that would imply that the replicant's experiences are completely predetermined, which undermines the entire motivation for the plot- why do the bladerunners have to hunt down rogue replicants if they could calculate their behaviour ahead of time? The whole point of the film is that emotion, memory and experience ( a category which must be akin to dreams?) accumulate within and essentialy alter the being which experiences/possess them, and impacts upon that beings behaviour. Like most tales of artificial beings, running right back to Frankenstein and arguably Genesis, Bladerunner is an existential story about free will and failiure to conform to preconcieved definitions of the being. To believe that Deckard's dreams can be accurately predicted without someone knowing every intimate detail of his post-creation experiences would imply that the replicants have no autonomy and are not affected by their experiences and developing emotions. This might be an attractive belief for someone who has to go out and shoot them for a living, since it reduces them to the status of machines, but the whole thrust of the film weighs against it.
I don't accept that the unicorn is by itself proof that Deckard is a replicant, but it does suggest that he might be. I think we have to conclude that Deckard's status is ambiguous. There simply isn't enough evidence either way, and for me the whole experience of the film would be reduced without that central ambiguity in the ending. The ambiguity about Deckard mirrors and intensifies the moral ambiguity of the narrative, and without it a great deal of the film's subtlety and beauty is washed away.
(My argument is perhaps undermined by the fact that the film's director (IIRC) once said that yes, Deckard is a replicant.) But I still think it's a classic example of ambiguity strengthening an artwork.
</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
[ August 08, 2001: Message edited by: Pseudonymouse ]
