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

You make it sound like you have read Fancher's original drafts? Are they available online somewhere?

 

No, I've just read producer Michael Deeley's Blade Runners, Deer Hunters and Blowing the Bloody Doors Off, which offers an in-depth first-hand account of the production, and last night I watched the 2 1/2 hour "Making of" on the 2007 DVD. So.

 

I'll have to check out that book.

 

I actually just did a quick Google search for the original script and found this: http://www.dailyscript.com/scripts/Blade-runner_early.html

 

A quick perusal of the first few pages confirms (for me at least) that it's legit. I've seen some of the original VO narration in the Making of doc ("It was 97 degrees in the city and no hope of improvement. Not bad if you're a lizard.") and the opening scene and abundance of interiors seem to gel with what I've read about the script. Thanks for the link!

 

Just making a random awesome post.

 

Weirdly, I now wish I had a Diet Coke.

Does advertising work? Just did!

 

In the Making Of AOTC book I recall the animators said GL instructed that Coruscant had to be "Better than Bladerunner". Now, I make no judgement here, but the speeder chase is my favorite scene. When I first heard about it I was worried bu the closest thing I had seen with modern cgi was the aweful cityscape chase in the Stallone Dredd flick. Thank goodness my fears were misplaced.

 

Heh, I thought one of the few good sequences in the 90s Judge Dredd was that cycle chase.

I'm also in the minority of SW fans in that AOTC is my favorite prequel, so yeah, I'll agree the speeder chase in fantastic.

But I still think the cityscape in BR looks more impressive, more photo-realistic than Coruscant, which looks amazing but still smacks of a certain digital busy-ness.

 

yeah, i have yet to see a movie that gives a giant futuristic city a more realistic and immersive feel than was found in Blade Runner. which is nuts considering that movie is now more than thirty years old. but more props to ridley and his men.

also, in my continued consideration of the "Deckard is a Skin-Job" theory: i can still entertain this at a literal level to a degree. but are we sure that gaff's whole "are you a man?" or whatever he said, might that not just be more on the "metaphysics" that he says he can't stand? i mean, i know he hates all that mumbo-jumbo. but i'd have an easier time believing gaff was a replicant than deckard.

oh, and that deleted/alternate scene reel was a blast, by the way.

 

The Deckard-as-Replicant theory is not just down to Gaff's question. It encompasses how Deckard had a dream of a unicorn that Gaff knew about, which he signaled by leaving Deckard an origami unicorn in the final scene. There are other hints, such as Deckard's eye shine and possibly Batty's saving Deckard at the climax, but those are less essential and less explanatory. There's really no other way to explain the unicorn thing apart from that Deckard is a Replicant.

 

Maybe both Deckard and Gaff thought of Rachel as something like a unicorn

 

On what account would Gaff leave an origami figure of a magical animal he conceived of Rachael as being "something like", outside Deckard's door?

 

Because it's what he does. Why the chicken? Was Deckard dreaming of chickens?
Why not?

 

It's got to make some kind of narrative sense or else it is meaningless. I'm willing to table Ridley Scott's explanations that yes, he intended Deckard to be a Replicant, in favor of discussing the matter in-universe. Gaff left origami animals at crime scenes. In what sense is Deckard's apartment hallway a crime scene?

 

He was hiding an illegal replicant but that doesn't matter cuz Gaff made the chicken in Bryant's office

 

yeah, i always figured the unicorn bit to be of some symbolic significance as to rachel being more than a regular skin-job. and the unicorn oragami still makes sense in a narrative sense even without gaff being "in on the joke", so to speak.

 

Fair point. I retract the idea that he makes them only at crime scenes. We still have the matter of Deckard's dream -- not of a chicken or a stick person, but a unicorn. The other origamis establish that Gaff makes such figures. Deckard's dream establishes a privately held image, a vision only he can know about. Your suggestion that Gaff conceives of Rachael "in the same way" is too coincidental, not only for real life -- which would be impossible without the operation of psychic powers -- but especially for a piece of cinema, in which story elements and images exist, and have been purposefully placed, for specific reasons.

You've made your case and I remain unconvinced. At this point, if you have no further points, we can just agree to disagree on the matter.

 

In the final cut Deckard is awake when he thinks of the unicorn. In the Director's cut he is sleeping.

We don't have to completely disagree. I think it works both ways(deckard=replicant and deckard=human) although I choose to believe he's human. That may be because I read the book first and he was definitely not a replicant in that.

 

I agree it can work both ways, especially given that neither screenwriters (as I noted upthread) nor original author (thank you for reminding) had any intention of making Deckard a Rep.

The source of this interpretation is and always has been Ridley Scott, who evidently mistakenly read a certain voice-over passage written by David Peoples (about confronting "my maker", by which Peoples meant God) as indicating that Deckard was a Rep. The unicorn dream / vision / daydream + origami unicorn seems to confirm this, but obviously this is still up for debate in fan circles. We're living proof!

 

Given Scott's revealed intentions of Deckard being a replicant (and hence adding in all those extra scenes to make it more obvious) I'm prepared to accept his interpretation, however I like entertaining the idea that Deckard is a human in the original version where it's more ambiguous. It also sets up a nice contrast between the replicants (who are so determined to try and gain more life before their standard 4 years is up - Tyrell's 'twice as bright' comment and all that) and human-Deckard who doesn't have such limitations but comes across as down and out with little care (until Rachel appears and gives him more to live for). In the original version where Gaff leaves the unicorn outside Deckard's apartment I tend to see it as more of a peace gesture by Gaff to Deckard, indicating he was there but has decided to let them free.

EDIT: merlin happily concede re: unicorn scenes, I simply read it in a review of the Director's Cut years ago and just took the reviewers word for it. I haven't seen Legend in years so wasn't able to compare.

 

yah, i always thought of that as a Legend parallel as well. but in a way, that's valid. unicorn is an exception to the rule. magical in its way and utterly unlike anything else in nature. rare, to say the least. much like rachel. did gaff know that deckard had a unicorn dream? probably not. is he willing to mutually concede that the circumstances are unique and unlike any other in the past? makes more sense to me. also, again in the deleted/altered scenes, we see a gaff that is literally gaffing (excuse me, i had to) at the idea of metaphysics or surreal concepts. so yeah, i can see how one might assume that gaff is privy to the intentions or false memories of the skin-jobs, much like deckard. does that mean deckard is a skin-job? maybe. but there's still just not enough to prove it to me within the confines of the source material.

 

OK, so you have to stop this conversation until you read Paul Salmon's Future Noir.

 

I've just played Paul Simon's So Beautiful or So What?, does that count?