http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=14724
Been waiting on this one a long time... Long awaited 3 Versions of Blade Runnner!
Been waiting on this one a long time... Long awaited 3 Versions of Blade Runnner!
pax said:Not sure if the new dir's cut will show deckard as a replicant but its supposed to be a bit longer... Personally I want to the original theatrical ver...
Guden Oden said:I wanted to make my life a little more complete by buying it a couple months back, but was told it had become out of print so to speak.
pax said:Well actually it took years before Scott actually came out and said he was a replicant. The dir's cut hadnt made it that obvious tho it drove speculation on the part of fans.
pax said:The theatrical to me was the perfect blend. The slightly added ending isnt that much a happy ending. For all we know Rachel dies in a few years. And in anycase the movie emphasizes death and mortality so much I really dont see how its affected by 2 min of sunlight and mountains. The narration hated by both Scott and Ford simply worked. Most fans agree. It took a sci fi movie and made it better as also a classic film noir...
pax said:I find it reflective in many instances tho it was obviously quickly written up (couldve used a few rewrites but its pretty good as is...) as the movie seemed too pointed towards those who had read the original book and was failing in test showings... Most of the fans grew up on the theatrical.
Gubbi said:The theatrical version was all we got!! Fans loved the movie for the cinematography, the attention to detail, the settings, the grit, the atmosphere and the story. Regardless of liking it all (you) or loathing the narrative and the ending (me) the original theatrical movie is still a fantastic movie.
If you're really interested in the background of the movie, read "Future Noir" by Paul Sammon to get a good idea of all the work that went into the movie, including the fight with studio executives.
Cheers
Well that's the whole point of the book. If something looks human, acts human, thinks it's human, then how's it different from us? How's it any less valuable or important?pax said:Ya the book def left it ambiguous. But a human that looks\behaves like a replicant makes replicants seem more human... You can spend an entire viewing of the flick thinking of just such a small part of it... Great aspect of the story really.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:Ford explained that he wanted there to be at least one human character for the audience to identify with. Without Dekard being human, there was no link between the audience and the plight of the replicants, and nothing to show that in essence the human protagonist and the replicants were the same. The fact that Dekard falls in love with a replicant woman who thinks she's human becomes a lot less evocative if Dekard is a replicant too.
Besides, I don't think that Scott can just proclaim Dekard a replicant. Dick left it deliberately ambiguous, and the following canon books by Jeter confirm Dekard as human. While Scott adapted the story to the cinema, the story is still Dick's.
... The way this all came about was, originally Ridley wanted Deckard to have an unusual daydream while he was sitting at his piano. Something like a very private thought. One that Gaff would know without being told. Which was meant to suggest that Deckard had had a memory implant Gaff had been privy to, and that Deckard was a replicant
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros. said:Well that's the whole point of the book. If something looks human, acts human, thinks it's human, then how's it different from us? How's it any less valuable or important?
In that case Scott has completely misinterpreted the book and changed its very fundamentals. If Dekard is a replicant and is just a terrible tool to do a terrible job against other terrible tools, then Scott confirms that humans are better than replicants. Humans do the good deed of giving replicants life, where replicants do horrible things to each other and to the much "better" humans.Gubbi said:I agree, this ethical aspect is really the core of the movie (and of the book) IMO.
It just seems a bad idea to produce human copies to work as slaves, complete with limited rights and lifespan.
IMO, Deckard being a replicant fits the sentiment portrayed in the movie: Killing rogue replicants is dirty and dangerous work, work best left to replicants.
Cheers