Agent Monkeysee on 9/8/2001 at 00:25
I've seen the Director's cut a number of times and loved it but apparently I'm a moron because:
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Spoiler:</font><DIV STYLE="background-color:#000080"><FONT color="#000080">
I had no idea Deckard's "replicancy" was even an issue in the film. It honestly never occured to me that he wasn't human. Could someone explain this to me?
</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
Maybe I should watch that movie again with my brain turned on.
Junkie Doodle on 9/8/2001 at 02:51
Interesting for and against cases. The whole point in the confusion being, in a perfect world, that Deckard himself doesn't know anymore.
And since Deckard is the character most viewers identify with, I was going to finish this sentence when I lost my train of thought.
Muzman on 9/8/2001 at 03:09
It shits me when they do stupid voice-overs and other dumbing down tactics. The Director's cut makes so much more sense all around; without the voice over you can hear all sorts of interesting background stuff from passing blimps and conversations etc. Made a world of difference.
I still have to see the reportedly dreadful re-cut of Brazil the studio tried to make because they considered the original unwatchable (unmarketable) and siezed it.
Siftland on 9/8/2001 at 03:15
Brazil! Now there's a movie! My favorite film ever, in fact. The "Love Conquers All" version is dreadful. It was actually sort of fun to watch though to see how much they butchered it. The Criterion Collection has a good commentary for it as well.
The difference between Scott and Gilliam: Scott let hollywood mess up his film, Gilliam did not. Gilliam always fights for his movies to the bitter end.
RaPtOr987656789 on 9/8/2001 at 05:42
Blade Runner is one of my all time favorite movies. I remember reading somewhere that Ridley Scott wasn't trying to recreate the book at all, but take the concept a little further. I don't think it did this, but the movie does a fine job anyway.
I thouht that the game did a good job of combining elements of the film with the book. It kept the exact same feel, but dealt with the fake animal issue from the book, (McCoy even mentions Sidney's almanack when you talk to Rachel) talked about the kipple, and even had events from the book. (when the blonde lady calls the cop on McCoy when he offends her with the Voight-Kamff)
Both the movie and the game left out all that stuff about Mercerism and the Empathy box, and neither suggest that Deckard had a wife.
Anyway, I'm a huge PKD fan. My favorites are the VALIS trilogy, A Scanner Darkly, and Flow My Tears the Policeman Said.
Agent Monkeysee on 9/8/2001 at 05:45
Quote:
Originally posted by Dave Angel:
<STRONG>If you're interested in reading the fully developed arguments behind the "Deckard - Replicant or Not?" argument, might I suggest the (
http://www.faqs.org/faqs/movies/bladerunner-faq/) Bladerunner FAQ</STRONG>
Cool, thanks. Informative read.
Strangeblue on 9/8/2001 at 07:17
Fuegan: my point about Star Wars was actually that the original's special effects did not stand the test of time so well as Blade Runner's did.
And I did, in fact, see the Director's Cut version of the film so, it's impossible for me to comment on what may or may not have been clear in the original version. I simply can't imagine the film with a voice-over narration that would add to it in any worthwhile fashion.
<BLOCKQUOTE><FONT size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, sans-serif">Spoiler:</font><DIV STYLE="background-color:#000080"><FONT color="#000080">I am not sure if I recall correctly from the story, but I think that the possibility that Deckard was, himself, a replicant was more specifically pointed to there than in this version of the film, where the implication is made, but not with a sledgehammer. I always made that association with the story, but it may simply be the way my mind related to the story, which I found almost unbearably painful to read.</FONT></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's a little unfair to bitch about the editing of the original release, IMO, since at the time this film was made, studios were excersizing a great deal of control over final cut for most films and Scott was still pretty early in his career and did not have the sort of clout to make demands of that type, nor, I suspect, did his contract grant him that sort of power. Things have changed a bit since then, though a lot of films are still in the stranglehold of moneymen with the artistic and literary esthetic of squid.
[ August 09, 2001: Message edited by: Strangeblue ]
X on 9/8/2001 at 21:46
Both the Phillip K. Dick book, and Blade Runner are great, but I believe diverse enough to warrant separate review. I prefer the film, as it removes the pseudo religious aspects in favour of your own determined morality. If some people do not question certain aspects, so be it. I think its the best film ever, with Fight Club a close second.
Seymour_Gibbs on 9/8/2001 at 22:06
Nope, im not reading those spoiler boxes... I dont want to know the whole plot... stop temting me, you evil blue boxes! Nooooo!
