Amph Blade Runner (Original, Black Lotus, 2049, 2099)

double post

 

Sure. That's the nature of good sci-fi, isn't it? And it was good sci-fi.

But this movie takes it into the alternate timeline realm, and even if not entirely, I still don't care for it. Just my personal opinion. For me, Blade Runner didn't need to become that. It could have stayed happily on its own, a classic - to be categorized alongside Soylent Green and Brazil. Now you can lump it in with Independence Day. Old directors revisiting their greatest hits for an ageing audience. Look, there's Pan Am.

 

Except Independance Day 2 is complete trash and a terrible film, a lazy attempt at a cash grab from an original that was very successful. Blade Runner keeps its integrity with this sequel IMO.

 

I was never very convinced by Ridley's "Deckard is a replicant" twist, even with the visual clues he added. I personally don't think the script supports that idea to any real degree. However, the nice thing about Blade Runner (Final Cut) is that it doesn't hit you over the head with how you are supposed to read the film.

I thought BR2049 was a great noir thriller, and there is more debate just than whether you think Deckard is a replicant or not.

 

Besides, Gaff's origami is clearly just a horse with an arrow in its forehead.

 

I always found the Final Cut elements (unicorn dream & Deckard's eyes in that scene with Rachel) settled the issue for me, though I also kind of always regretted the corresponding loss of being able to read Deckard's "arc" in the original as one in which a human being reclaimed his humanity, which he had lost due to what he was required to do as a blade runner, by allowing himself to make emotional connections with artificially created beings (thinking here not only of his relationship with Rachel but also his experience of having been saved by Roy and the impact of Roy's final words).

I've also always wondered how those who still prefer to read Final Cut Deckard as human then interpret the combination of Deckard's unicorn dream/memory at the piano and the concluding unicorn origami? I think I read somewhere once about people seeing it as just a reference to Rachel's "purity" (the belief that only a virgin could tame/capture a unicorn and simply as evidence that Gaff was in Deckard's apartment but is signaling that he will let Rachel live/not pursue Deckard and Rachel), but I'm genuinely curious as to exactly how those still in the "Deckard is a human" camp interpret both the last origami and the shot with Deckard's eye reflections.

I haven't seen or read a lot of Harrison's 2049 interviews, but assuming that he still maintains that he sees Deckard as human, I also wonder if he's ever addressed his own view of those Final Cut elements. I have the Final Cut blu ray set but it's been a long time since I watched those bonus features, so I can't remember if he already commented on them at that time.

 

Deckard being a replicant was always a stupid idea. There's simply no reason for it in the story. The contrast between Deckard's empty human existence and Batty's intense love of life is a significant part of what makes the original movie a masterpiece. The sequel invents a new reason for it: they make better assassins. It's a boring reason, and Deckard as a replicant is a more boring story.

 

Well we know that Ridley put those things in to subvert the writer's intention, so we know exactly why they are there from a meta point of view.

Taken literally the glowing eyes are ridiculous - they come up with this extremely complicated psychological test, involving asking the subject many questions and checking their vital signs with a specialised machine to measure their responses, when in fact it turns out that all they needed to do was dim the lights because replicants eyes glow in the fricken' dark!

Seriously. I see Ridley says that is just a stylistic touch, even he won't argue that it makes sense in the context of the story.

The unicorn... Deckard has a dream about a fantastical creature that does not exist in nature, whilst tracking replicants who are fantastic creatures that are not the product of nature... go figure. Gaff's origami unicorn being present merely signifies that Gaff has let Deckard run off with Rachel. It could be a coincidence, it could be that Deckard has used the unicorn metaphor for replicants to Gaff in the past, and thus Gaff is using it as a symbol for Rachel. Honestly, it doesn't really bother me.

Lots of things in Blade Runner don't make huge amounts of sense, because the script went through so many changes. In Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep animals are nearly extinct, and humans feel a collective guilt over this, a sense of loss, and an obsessive desire to own a real animal. In the film you have many of the Voight-Kampff test questions involving empathy with animals, despite the fact that IIRC there is no mention of animal extinctions or the resulting revulsion to the idea of harming an animal. We get that question about a calf-skin wallet, but not the context of why such a thing is bad. We are also told that replicants have been designed with short life-spans because it is felt that after a while they might develop their own emotional responses. Tyrell however tells Batty that they were built as well as they could make them and that there is no way to make them last longer. So were they designed to have a short life as a safeguard, or is their short life a consequence of the candle that burns twice as bright burns half as long?

I'd also argue that there is little point to sending a replicant after replicants if you don't give him physical abilities that match his targets. What is the point otherwise? But that's just my take. Blade Runner is a big, beautiful, messy movie which people interpret in different ways. Whatever works for you.

 

For me though Deckard as a replicant doesn't really damage his original "arc" because he's unaware of it and operating as a human, albeit perhaps one sub consciously behaving in a fashion similar to the replicants at points(such as collecting old music). The finale reveal of his nature is really not intended to be a "twist" that casts whats come previously in an entirely different light but rather as a confirmation of it.

Personally I would argue as well is that Scott's intension with revealing Deckard as a replicant was to reveal much of the films intension to audiences. That is that the replicants aren't just standing as a warning against slavery(either present or future) but rather acting as a stand in for post religious man today. The limited lifespan throwing human mortality into sharper relief and there artificial nature lacking in a higher purpose a reflection of a loss of religious faith with meaning instead being achieved internally, I mean I'm no philosophy student but there's obviously a lot of Nietzsche and Satre in Roy's story especially. Revealing your lead character who acts as the audiences widow into the story as a replicant himself askes them to consider the storys relevance to themselves.

 

When you say Deckard acts as "the audiences widow", is that a reference to BR's poor box-office?

 

For sure, on both counts. Fortunately, the overall effect of the film is so mesmerizing to me that it's very easy to set such problems/flaws aside!

 

Deckard's eyes depend on who you ask. Ask Scott and the whole thing was on purpose. Ask everyone else including the people on set and they say it was an accident and were not given specific instructions to capture the eye glow on Ford.

 

The eye glow thing I always sees is more metaphorical than literal so Deckard's eyes are just a symptom of him coming closer to Rachel the Replicant. The Unicorn at the end, coincidence. Or maybe Deckard wouldn't stop blabbing to Gaff about how he's such a huge unicorn fan.

 

Finally saw this film..... and man I loved it, just as I loved the first one . Sadly the most disappointing part of the movie was Harrison Ford. Character didn't feel like Deckard or anything resembling him . Gosling did fantastic so did his hologram counterpart( too lazy to check name but she was good in Knock Knock also) . What I'm not understanding is the hate for the sound and music. I thought it was incredible, with a slightly new sound yet eerily similar to the familiar Blade Runner synths. I don't think I could ever hate on a Zimmer composition though. Thought the bass and reverb reacted well with what the environment the story and director were trying to portray.

 

This response is so you.

 

One reason to hate the music/sound is that the bass was so dam loud at my showing it was causing the screen to ripple.

The films soundtrack was in development hell during production as well, two previous soundtracks by El-P and Jóhann Jóhannsson were rejected and ZImmerman was brought in as late as July.

 

"I want something that really captures the mood of this city, you know? Like the Vangelis soundtrack's haunted, layered, moody Moog sounds just reinforced how alone people are... I want something subtle. Nothing that bashes the audience over the head, ok? And we're pretty much at our last resort for composers, so I have to trust you ok Hans?"

 

I didn't mind Hans's soundtrack in this. At least it wasn't similar to Interstellar in which the bass farts would drown out key dialogue.

 

No they just ruined key shots of the city as a character with BAWWWWWWWWWWW BWAAAAAAAAAAAA VZZZZZZZZZ

He's montrously ****, as a composer, and could (and should) **** entirely off.

 

I like his work for The Last Samurai.

 

Yeah the theater I was at had light fixtures and wall panels vibrating and making it slightly annoying but other than that I loved the sound

 

Do anybody know what was up with the bees?