Sci-Fi Blade Runner (1982)

[spicmart]

To me, the first time viewing of Blade Runner was quite a bore. I wasn't mature enough I guess, as , at that time, I dug more action oriented movie stuff. Later on I grew to really love this film in all its beauty (maybe like Deckard grows to love Rachel ), but without the "Shining" ending.
Also I do not find Deckard's Off Speeches annoying, at all. But one can argue about that.
Ridley Scott's "assumption", as I call it, makes little sense, at least for me.
It seems too sensationalistic: "Whoah, Deckard's a replicant, too?!!?".
It takes the tragic twist away from the circumstance that a human can fall truly and deeply in love with "something" that , for him, had been just like one of the potentially hazardous machines he is frequently ordered to switch off. Deckard is the only human to see it and he is going to lose it almost for sure.
Therein lies the real beauty and tragedy of that love story, that you are able to develop beyond your boundaries, IMHO.
I can understand why people also appreciate Scott's version. It has its own allure, but I think it isn't as profound and touching.
Somewhere someone wrote a similar opinion about Blade Runner and stated that, every once in a while, a work of art surpasses the original vision of its maker.
Blade Runner might be one of those.

Just my 2 cents.

 

[Alien Soup]

From Deadline.com:

Writer Michael Green is in negotiations to do a rewrite of Alcon Entertainment’s “Blade Runner” sequel penned by Hampton Fancher (“Blade Runner,” “The Minus Man,” “The Mighty Quinn”) and to be directed by Ridley Scott. Fancher’s original story/screenplay is set some years after the first film concluded.

Alcon co-founders and co-Chief Executive Officers Broderick Johnson and Andrew Kosove will produce with Bud Yorkin and Cynthia Sikes Yorkin, along with Ridley Scott. Frank Giustra and Tim Gamble, CEO’s of Thunderbird Films, will serve as executive producers.

Green recently completed rewrites on “Robopocalypse” and Warners Bros “Gods and Kings.”

Alcon and Yorkin previously announced that they are partnering to produce “Blade Runner” theatrical sequels and prequels, in addition to all television and interactive productions.

The original film, which has been singled out as the greatest science-fiction film of all time by a majority of genre publications, was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry by the Library of Congress as being “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant.” The film was selected for preservation in the United States National Film Registry in 1993 and is frequently taught in university courses. In 2007, it was named the 2nd most visually influential film of all time by the Visual Effects Society.

Released by Warner Bros. almost 30 years ago, “Blade Runner” was adapted by Hampton Fancher and David Peoples from Philip K. Dick’s groundbreaking novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?” and directed by Scott following his landmark “Alien.” The film was nominated for two Academy Awards (Best Visual Effects, and Best Art Direction). Following the filming of “Blade Runner,” the first of Philip K. Dick’s works to be adapted into a film, many other of Dick’s works were likewise adapted, including “Total Recall,” “A Scanner Darkly,” “Minority Report,” “Paycheck,” and the recent “The Adjustment Bureau,” among others.

 

[Kevin]

The original film, which has been singled out as the greatest science-fiction film of all time by a majority of genre publications...

So don't ruin it by making a sequel that will likely not hold up to the original and will be forgotten about. The original movie fuels debates even now 30 years after it came out; let it have its place in cinema history without diluting it by trying to cash in by making a bunch of other loosely connected works.

 

[AlienView]

Just saw Blade Runner - thought it was OK but not the great classic some say it is. But what has me confused was the ending. In the version I saw [I heard there are different versions} at the very end Rachel the female replicant that runs off with him drops some crinkled peace of metal and Decker picks it up sort of nods a knowing yes like he now understands and then the movie ends - What is the meaning?
-Thanks in advance

 

[Kevin]

Just saw Blade Runner - thought it was OK but not the great classic some say it is. But what has me confused was the ending. In the version I saw [I heard there are different versions} at the very end Rachel the female replicant that runs off with him drops some crinkled peace of metal and Decker picks it up sort of nods a knowing yes like he now understands and then the movie ends - What is the meaning?
-Thanks in advance

There are a few different endings and each have their own interpretations. The biggest difference between them is the degree to which it is indicated that Decker himself is a replicant. One of the releases leaves it a bit wider open to interpretation while another release has a voice-over that gives a stronger indication of it. The biggest thing is with Decker finding the origami piece indicating that the cop was there (if you recall, the cop Decker was supposed to be working with had a habit of making little origami figures and leaving them in the rooms he was at).

 

[Anthony G Williams]

Film: Blade Runner (The Final Cut, 2007)

Blade Runner is one of the most famous SF movies ever made, but I had only seen the original 1982 cinema version, and that a long time ago. Several different versions have been made but in only one of them did director Ridley Scott have complete artistic freedom – The Final Cut, released in 2007 – so when it came up on TV I was keen to watch it.

I'm sure I needn't say much about the plot, concerning the efforts of a specialist police officer (Bladerunner) in a future Los Angeles to identify, track and "retire" (kill) four replicants; very tough and strong artificial humans made for work in outer space who have illegally returned to Earth in the hope of extending their artificially short lives. The four most important characters in the film are the Bladerunner Deckard (Harrison Ford), two of the replicants he is hunting (Rutger Hauer in a compelling performance, and Darryl Hannah) and a young woman who also turns out to be a replicant (Sean Young).

The setting is dystopian, with Los Angeles a grim, dark, dirty, violent and decidedly wet place (most of the scenes seem to be set at night, in the rain). The mood is enhanced by the soundtrack, with strange mechanical noises from the city frequently intruding into the futuristic background music from Vangelis. The most noticeable difference between The Final Cut and the original is the deletion of the explanatory voice-over from the protagonist Deckard; a big improvement in my view, as it adds to the bleak, mysterious atmosphere of the film. Little is explicit and the viewer has to focus to keep up with the often fast-moving action, but time is taken to give some depth to the major characters, and some of the minor ones too. The fact that the replicants are treated with some sympathy adds to an air of moral ambiguity; this is definitely a film for adults to appreciate, in a way that few SF films have been (Gattacabeing another example).

The original release should certainly feature in anyone's list of best SF films; The Final Cut is vying for the top spot. Compared with another good SF film seen recently – Interstellar– it lacks the ambitious plot and spectacular visuals, but as a piece of filmic drama it is clearly superior. Any SF fan who has not seen this film should certainly do so, and try to see The Final Cut if you can.

A final thought: the film is set in 2019, which in 1982 was presumably felt to be far enough into the future for interstellar colonisation to be feasible. It is rather sad, but typical of SF, that this optimistic assumption was so far from reality that we are in fact further from achieving that now than we seemed to be in 1982. Yet the IT visible in the film was far less advanced than ours – which just emphasises how difficult it is to predict technological developments.


(This entry is cross-posted from my science-fiction & fantasy blog.)

 

[BudBrewster]

When I first heard of the idea that Deckard was a replicant without realizing it, I hated the idea. I thought it was just somebody's funky way of throwing in an unnecessary twist.

But after reading some what other folks thought of the idea -- and why they thought it -- I realized I had been dead wrong. Here's why.

Story wise, making Deckard a replicant is completely consistent with the actions of Dr. Eldon Tyrell. Consider: He was proud of the owl he made that was extremely realistic. He was proud of the regular replicants and the way they had asserted themselves by rebelling against their slave status.

He was proud of Rachel and the fact that she was so real she didn't know she was a replicant. So, what's the next challenge for the brilliant Dr. Tyrell? It's obvious.

He creates a replicant that not only doesn't know he isn't human, he unknowingly fools all his coworkers whose job it is to hunt down escaped replicants.

The thing that puzzled me at first, however, was the way Deckard's boss made statements that indicated he'd known Deckard for years. So, how could Deckard be a replicant if he had old acquaintances?

Again, the answer is obvious.

The real Deckard was killed and replaced by the replicant Deckard -- without knowing he was the replacement!

Thus we have the ultimate test of Dr. Tyrell's genius: he replaces a human with a replicant who is an expert on recognizing replicants, but he doesn't recognize his own true nature because he's such a perfect duplicate of the human he replaced.

This is the most interesting aspect of the entire story --- and if it isn't part of the story, the movie has considerably less depth.

So, what do you think, guys. Is he real? Or is he Memorex?

* This is a fine thread, guys. Naturally I added it to The Multi-Board Alphabetical Index.

 

[AlienView]

At some point according to some - true consciousness will be achieved by a machine - The machine will think
and have a sense of self - an identity.

I am old enough to feel physical mortality - my body is wearing out. Now if I can download my conscious
mind into a computer and then upload it into an android - call it a REPLICANT in honor of the film - Will you
deny me the right to sentience? Will you deny me the right to live as a conscious machine? On what grounds?

And yes many will try to deny me this - Why? Because of fear - Man fears the next stage in evolution {Evolution being defined as an endless expansion of intelligence with a definite objective still not calculable
to ordinary mortals}.

Humans fear the next stage in Evolution - Fear that it will replace them - and it will. The mortal physical
biological body is full of flaws that biological evolution can not correct. The 'gene' experiment is reaching
the end point - It is time to evolve through machine intelligence {AI} to the next stage. As the Replicants
begin to take over be thankful that they allow you to live and die naturally as an inferior biological entity.

 

[Tom]

Blade Runner ( 1982 )
Blade Runner: Deckard, a blade runner, has to track down and terminate 4 replicants who hijacked a ship in space and have returned to earth seeking their maker.

https://images.{...}/thumbs/926_Blade_Runner_1982.jpg https://www.{...}/images/ribbon_watched.png

• Currently 3.97/5

(747 votes)
Ratings: IMDB: 8.2/10 Metascore: 88% RT: 91%
Released: June 25, 1982
Runtime: 117 mins
Genres: Action Thriller Sci-Fi
Countries: USA Hong Kong
Director: Ridley Scott
Actors: Alexis Rhee Ben Astar Bob Okazaki Brion James Charles Knapp Daryl Hannah Edward James Olmos Harrison Ford Hy Pyke James Hong Joanna Cassidy Joe Turkel Judith Burnett Kevin Thompson M Emmet Walsh Morgan Paull Rutger Hauer Sean Young William Sanderson

 

[Gurney Man]

Forgive me folks, I realize this thread has been dead for a few, but I do feel the need to throw my two cents in. First, Droog1, I have a feeling you and I will get along quite well on this site, another handle I used to use on other sites was "droog5150," so I have a feeling we have a few things in common.

I'm like a few others on this thread, because my favorite version of this flick is the director's cut, but I do wander if I would have understood as much of the movie had I not seen the theatrical release first. I appreciate the ambiguous ending of the last two versions. I thought the ending of the Th release was too sappy, too much of a "happy" ending. Very appreciative of the fact that Scott's best version of the ending leaves the viewer with no idea was happened to Deckard and Rachael, whether they ever escaped the building much less the city.
Also of the opinion that the story line is much better if Deckard is human and not replicant, gives the plot much more meaning to me, (which I'll explain in later threads if you'd like) and the fact that it was kept ambiguous in the sequel. Much more meaningful to me, in both movies (original and 2049) if Deckard was to be proven human.
I could converse about this movie 'til I'm blue in the face, and probably will.
Dichotomy! Although I do consider Blade Runner to be pretty much the classic sci-fi movie of all time, I almost have to consider this more of a film-noir detective movie, just happens to be set in the future. (although set in 2019, kinda tough for me to call it "futuristic". ) I'll say the same thing for "Soylent Green" although Id have to skip the "film noir" aspect.
Hopefully enjoy some more opinions on this movie AND the sequel, which was surprisingly better than I anticipated.






"Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave."

 

[Verna]

I'm late to the party too. I saw the first edition in the original theater release before I knew who Ford was. FWIW and without a ton of text, as long as I consider each individually, I like both, but found the most recent version would be confusing for the younger crowd or people who only watch sci-fi in passing. As long as you enjoyed one, or the other, or both, that's great but I don't consider either the standard by which all sci-fi is measured, just good movies that were done well enough that I would consider seeing a third offering.

 

[Tom]

Wow, I find absolutely no value in any of your comments?
Guess I'm just weird...