Movie Thread

[Guest]

The Final Cut was from 2007

We weren't talking about the final cut, we were talking about the director's cut. These were minor fixes anyway

The question is the reason for why these newer version added those cut scenes back in.

I think the term 'Director's Cut' is a pretty big giveaway. Scott wanted them in the film to begin with.

[rabidtictac]

Yes it is. There's the unicorn dream and the unicorn origami and there's visual cues like Deckard having the red eyes that the Replicants have. It is definitely implied

Except that none of that was in the original theatrical cut I just watched. That was all added in the latter director's cut. Ridley Scott can claim the rest of his life that Deckard was a replicant, but the fact is neither the screenwriters nor Ford thought so when they made the film, I don't believe even Scott thought so when directing the film, but later liked the fan theory and made additions to the director's cut based on it.

The theory is not only nonsensical, it would also weaken the highlight of the film; Roy's death scene. "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe." Yeah, you are talking to just another replicant there you dumb fuck, to one who is made to hunt replicants, but who, for some incomprehensible reason, is made substantially inferior to those he hunts.

It wouldn't even fit thematically into the story, there would be minimal human-replicant interaction in the film, just replicant-replicant, like Deckard's relationship to Rachel. Hell, why leave it there that only Deckard was a secret replicant, what if they ALL were replicants, Tyrell, Bryant, Gaff, Sebastian etc. Wouldn't that be cool?!

Making Deckard a replicant also undermines the point that it doesn't matter who is or who isn't a replicant. Rachel is a replicant, but it doesn't matter, because she's still a person by whatever measure we use to determine sentient life. Deckard is able to relate to her not because they're both replicants, but because they're both people. She's an artificial person and he's a biological person. They're both human by the logic of the film's conclusion. Her death date is unknown because none of us know when we'll die. It's a clear parallel drawn by the film between Rachel and normal people, of which Deckard is our primary role model.

Deckard being a secret replicant makes no sense and is fucking dumb. The fundamental conflict is between worldviews. Deckard's, Roy's, the society's. Rachel is caught in the middle. Roy attaches special significance to his shortened life. He thinks he's more valuable because he's a replicant. The hunters think they're more valuable because they're human. Deckard isn't thinking at all, not until he meets Rachel and watches a few more replicants die. If Deckard is just a replicant, then his growth as a character is ultimately meaningless, his backstory doesn't matter (because it's programmed) and the whole film feels that much more contrived.

If Deckard is a replicant then, like you said, basically every interaction in the film would be between fucking replicants. The movie becomes a farce of itself. Welcome to Blade Runner, where everyone is a replicant and the points don't matter!

Without human characters to contrast against replicants, the soul of the movie is lost. Without a definition of what it means to be a person, the film ends up defining humanity against other robots and then finding that all the robots are human according to robot standards. Deckard is the most well-developed human character in the film. Most of the other humans are caricatures.

People forget, btw, that Ridley Scott makes bad movies sometimes. Maybe not quite to the degree of a George Lucas, but still. Prometheus fell far short of its potential and I heard the other movie was even worse. Maybe Ridley Scott thinks the film is "cooler" if Deckard is a replicant. But like backflipping, lightsaber-swinging Yoda in Star Wars, I'm gonna have to disagree.

[rabidtictac]

The whole Blade Runner Replicant thing reminds me of Paul Verhoeven and Total Recall. He was asked if the film was a dream or not and he said that both conclusions were valid. As much as I don't think Deckard is a replicant, I would respect Ridley Scott more if he went that route. The difference for me between Total Recall and Blade Runner is that both interpretations of the ending in Total Recall work for me. Deckard as a replicant makes Total Recall a worse movie imo.

[Guest]

People forget, btw, that Ridley Scott makes bad movies sometimes

People don't forget. It's a common criticism of Ridley Scott that, while he's a very good visual director, he has no sense of story and that's on display here with Blade Runner and thinking Deckard is a Replicant.

[VoiceOfReasonPast]

People forget, btw, that Ridley Scott makes bad movies sometimes. Maybe not quite to the degree of a George Lucas, but still. Prometheus fell far short of its potential and I heard the other movie was even worse.

You mean the Prometheus sequel / Alien prequel that answered no questions, was even more pretentious, painted that synthetic bloke from Prometheus as the franchise's ultimate bad guy / xenomorph creator, and gave Prometheus' strong and independent protagonist only a short cameo as a rotting corpse? Can't see how that would fail.

[Kugelfisch]

Has anyone here read Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?
I've heard it's so different from Blade Runner that it's basically a different story.

[Guest]

Has anyone here read Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?
I've heard it's so different from Blade Runner that it's basically a different story.

Yeah I've read it. It's a pretty good book but you're in for a shock if you're used to Blade Runner.

[Kugelfisch]

I'll, go for that next after Foundation then.

[Guest]

If you enjoy Foundation, put End of Eternity on your list.

[Complicity]

Has anyone here read Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep?
I've heard it's so different from Blade Runner that it's basically a different story.

All i remember about it is that Deckard has a nagging wife, and he cheats on her with Rachel.
And the famous Roy Batty monologue isn't in the book, because the actor improvised it.