Pass the Voight-Kampff Test -- **The Blade Runner Thread**

Though our beloved Harrison Ford admits to not being a big fan of this film, there are many who are. This Ridley Scott classic, or cult classic depending on who you ask, probably leaves us with more questions after the film than during. Questions of life and death, the ability to truly feel, to appreciate what we have been given by a higher power, and all sorts of philosophical questions that armchair psychiatrists love. Also lots of symbolism both on screen and in dialogue are nice fodder for the armchair film theorists.

So, Do JC Members Dream of Electric Sheep . . .

Moleman edit: unlocking for upcoming DVD release

 

I have been a long time fan of Bladerunner. I had just read the book it was based on about a year and a half ago, and I didn't like it much.

I heard that Ford liked making the film but he didn't like having to do the voice over as requested by the studio, and they wanted the happy ending tacked on for the audience. I've seen both versions, and honestly I like the voice over and the happy ending. Call me crazy.

I read the sequal book, it wasn't too bad. The thing is they established that Dekkard was not a replicant, but both the director and Ford said in the film he was actually a replicant as alluded to by the electric horse dream in the director's cut. There is also a shot in both versions where Dekkards eyes are glowing slightly like Rachael's do during her Voight Kampff test which was meant as a clue by the filmmakers.

 

When it first came out, the voiceover was almost a necessity for me as I was fairly young when I saw it and just couldn't follow it. Now that I'm older and can see the layers of the film, I can take or leave the voiceover, though I think the "happy ending" is rather cheesy.

There are so many different versions of the film, it's hard to keep them straight. Each had some telling clues as to whether or not Deckard was a replicant. I think it was the Director's Cut where Deckard actually had a dream about a white unicorn and then at the end of the movie Gaff leaves the origami unicorn outside the apartment. Adding that unicorn dream sequence seems almost too cut and dry for terms of interpretation, considering that would've been a pretty big thing to leave out of the first release. Maybe they thought that would've been to obvious a clue.

 

For me this is the perfect Sci-Fi movie. Many of today's directors should watch this movie to see how things should be done.

Dark movie, awesome plot, fantastic sets, outstanding score make this possibly the greatest sci-fi movie ever.

Is Deckard a replicant ? Absolutely 100% yes - even in both versions of the movie. True, the directors cut it's banged home with a sledgehammer (in the form of the unicorn dream), but in many ways I prefer the original movie because it is more subtle.

The sequence that gives it away (for me) is the love making sequence between Deckard and Rachael. It's clumsy and ackward, and really looks (to me) like it's the first time they've ever actually engaged in sexual relations. Basically, what you might expect from two artificial beings who'd only been switched on recently. Almost like they knew what they were supposed to be doing, but couldn't quite get it right as they were replying on fabricated memories rather than actual experiences.

Furthermore, the photos in Deckard's appartment don't make any sense. There's little theme or organisation to them - almost as if they'd been put there by someone else randomly trying to create the feeling of a 'home'. Deckard picks one up and looks at it, but really (to me) is studying it because it's unfamiliar, rather than because it's of a loved family member.

 

Aesthetically, it is one of the most important Sci-Fi films ever.
Ford had a point when he complained that he played a detective who didn't actually do much detective work.

I hate it when people say "the book was better", but... I have always prefered the book to the movie.
Phillip K Dick was an amphetamine-fuelled genius.
The chapter where Deckard himself is arrested turns everything on it's head - I always imagined it would have translated excellently to film.
But Scott obviously had his reasons for handling the material the way it did.

Whether you prefer the novel or the film - both have made at least one major contribution to sci-fi lore: The future does not look brand new, it looks OLD.

 

"All those moments will be lost...in time...like....tears in rain."

 

Looks like Blade Runner is finally getting another recut, but finally the "true" director's cut and then another theatrical run for the 25th anniversary. 2007 is shaping up to be a great year for BR fans as the recut will be available in a box set and on HD-DVD and Blu-Ray.

Details here and a beautiful piece of Struzan artwork!

http://www.thedigitalbits.com/index.html#mytwocents

 

Material we've never seen before? I know of a hospital scene

 

Are they going to have the theatrical cut and the director's cut on the DVD? I love Blade Runner, but I have no memory of seeing the theatrical cut, with the narration. I may have seen it when I was a child, but if I did, it didn't stick.

Sooner or later, i'm going to have to read that novel and maybe read that sequal that was mentioned above.

 

From DigitalBits.com

You can expect a multi-disc box set (again, likely with a simultaneous HD-DVD and Blu-ray Disc release) that will contain at least four different versions of the film... ALL in full anamorphic widescreen, we might add. You'll get the film's original U.S. theatrical cut, you'll get the expanded international theatrical cut, you'll get the 1992 Director's Cut and you'll get the new Final Cut as well.


Then there's gonna be all the extra goodies . . .

 

oops - I just bought the single disc DVD of the just released remastered-remastered version - it only contains the director's cut. I didn't appreciate that there might be a box set of the remastered-remastered version with bonus dics etc etc.


Anyways, I made my gf watch the movie (her first time), hoping that she'd watch it and enjoy it, then after the movie I was going to be all smart and say "so, did you realise he's a replicant too?".

However, about 20 minutes or so into the movie, she turns round to me and says "he's a robot too, isn't he?".

I was disappointed

 

I think these days it just seems like the obvious conclusion given the setup of the film. Plus I know of few people who haven't had that spoiled for them.

Personally, I think Blade Runner is a terrifically obtuse, boring, ultimately pointless film. Great cinematography, and astounding visual effects, even today but especially for its time. I've watched it three times, trying to appreciate it as a filmmaker and a storyteller and trying to see what it is that people love so much about it. I just can't engage myself with the film on any level besides the technical.

By contrast, I've read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" and I loved the book. I understood some references to the book that probably made even less sense to people who hadn't read it, as they didn't bother to do much explaining.

I dunno. I didn't come in here to troll or anything. I just feel that personally, the movie fails to do what people praise it for doing, although the book itself does them masterfully. I just don't get the flick.

M. Scott

 

dude, you are inches from banland!

Bladerunner is the ultimately sci-fi movie.

 

I heard that was 2001: A Space Odyssey? (Which, incidentally, I hate with a fiery passion that eclipses my mere failure to enjoy Blade Runner.)

And how dare YOU say something is better then Star Wars on TFN!



M. Scott

 

Star Wars died for me with the PT.

2001 is a fundamentally important cinematic experience, but I'm unsure it's the greatest sci-fi ever. It deals with a simple concept, in a very subtle way, and does it in an extremely convincing way.

Incidentally my gf "got" 2001 very quickly - the whole concept of outside forces helping to evolve man into what it is today.

 

yeah, when the Lucy Lawless cylon woke up from her dream in the previous to last episode I thought, "Hey, androids to dream electric sheep."

 

Upping for DVD release:

Supposed to be this year sometime.

 

What's on this DVD again? Two cuts including a final Ultimate version?

 

Heh... an interesting movie, no doubt, and of course extremely cinematic. The shots of the city glistening in the sun from the upper stories for one. Have to say that, although I can appreciate that aspect (as I can with 2001), in both cases it leaves me a little underwhelmed and like it's trying to be deeper than it actually is, as crazy as that sounds to some who seem to find them extremely profound* But I definitely appreciate the idea in Blade Runner that some distinctions we think of as fundamental really don't matter so much-- if it looks like a human and acts like a human and feels like a human, is it really ultimately right not to treat it like a human? And would we treat it differently if we didn't know it wasn't a human-- why? That, I quite agree, is good science fiction. Practically, it's a metaphor for any group that's been called 'sub-human', treated as animals or slaves.

I've actually written a SW/Bladerunner AU fanfic called Do Droids Dream of Cloned Sheep. I take a certain delicious irony in pairing up two Harrison Ford characters. Yes, I know it's read-only because it hasn't been posted in in so long, but you can still read it, and I'd love to hear any comments you have on it via PM.

*Count me another one who far preferred the book 2001 to the movie. I'm not too crazy about stuff that's 'trippy', sorry, and also I really could care less about a more advanced race hypothetically pushing us along our path, I don't see how it's particularly relevant as I don't think it's at all likely and if it's a religious methaphor, I'm an atheist anyway .

 

For Malkie, if he's still reading this:

TheDigitalBits.com has a YouTube link that has the "final cut" trailer included. I clicked on the link, and saw a comment at the bottom of the YouTube page where somebody insists that Deckard was written *in the filming script* to be human. It was only by a few snips here and there in the 1992 release, dumping the voice-over, and some later "retconning" that Scott himself began to imply that Deckard himself was a replicant, thereby denying the original intent of the screenplay. Thoughts?

I have to say that I prefer Deckard to be human. Not because that's what we were supposed to be in the original 1982 release, but because I find it to be a greater literary irony that a human would be tasked with destroying replicants, only to find that he falls in love with another replicant, all the while still hunting down and destroying his original replicant targets. No outpouring of empathetic displays toward replicants and siding with them against the Establishment (a la the Last Samurai). He survives, takes what he wants, and escapes. Hollywood's too conventional these days for a script like this.

 

4-5 disc final edition is the word now. Plus a little briefcase.

 

Saw the original movie: Very cool, especially at the time.
Saw the re-cut: didn't see the point or what all the fuss was about.
Read the book: wondered how they got from the material in the book to the movie. Turning an opera singer into a stripper!?!
Read the sequel novel: It was awful. Have read 2 other books by the same author and concluded he should be banned from further access to publishers of any kind.

Sad thing is tha PKD died before he became famous, just before the movie came out that would have made him fabulously (on moderately) rich.

Film adaptations of PKD frequently bare little-to-no resemblance to the stories he wrote. Paycheck is probablly closest. Total Recal, on the other hand...

If you watch a movie called The Pentagon Wars, it's all about the development of the Bradley Fighting Vehicle over the course of 30 years and $11 billion. THere's one scene, where the inspector is looking at the original design approved by congress, and the current design. "How did they get from this to This?
That is how I feel when I look at Total Recal and compare it to "We Can Rebuild You Wholesale."

As is usually the case, you have to consider PDK novels and PKD movies as two completely separate, unrelated entities, which happen to have similar properties, characters, or story elements, but nothing actually intentionally in common.
The only movies I've run into supposedly based on books that are more disparit than PKD are HP Lovecraft. Read the book... Watch the movie... Scratch head wondering what happened.

 

A Scanner Darkly is pretty close to the book

Pentagon Wars is a cool film, if a little worrying. The Dick book, however, is We Can Remember It for You Wholesale

 

Sorry, bad night, hasty typing.