Ain't It Cool News (
Movie News

Footage From BLADE RUNNER: FINAL CUT Slices Onto The Internets!! See Adama Take A Crap On Metaphysics!!

Merrick here...
Yahoo has posted four clips from the forthcoming BLADE RUNNER re-edit/face lift/partial re-edit/all-around cleaning. Included in the selection are a preview of DANGEROUS DAYS, the newly commissioned mega-documentary chronicling the making of the film, quite a bit of the retooled Zhora street gundown (for which Joanna Cassidy recently re-shot new footage), "the Unicorn scene" (which, according to Ridley Scott, is one of the substantial clues that Ford's Deckard character is a Replicant...)
...and a new street sequence featuring hot-bodied tittybar dancers wearing Jason masks. God bless Ridley Scott!


All of this is from the forthcoming giganto-DVD set, whose artwork looks like this:
And, finally, the one that makes my undies gooey...

I swiped these pictures from TheDigitalBits. You can read more about the specs for the specific packages HERE! all of this is way cool by me. However, I'm dyin' to get a good look at some of the effects (reworked and new) being dropped into this thing. BLADE RUNNER: FINAL CUT releases on DVD December 18. There are repeated, very hushed, and extremely inconclusive rumors suggesting some sort of theatrical release for the project beyond the anounced LA / NYC release on October 5. Personally, I'd bet against it...but you never can tell. I'd love to see this "definitive" version on a great big screen, at least one time.

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 28, 2007, 6:02 p.m. CST


    by Yeti

    yay me!

  • July 28, 2007, 6:02 p.m. CST


    by jimmy rabbitte


  • July 28, 2007, 6:02 p.m. CST

    keep it ambiguous!

    by scratcher

    Why spell it all out that he's definitely a replicant? How does that improve the film? Smells of Star Wars revisionism.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:03 p.m. CST

    I'd certainly pay to see it on the big screen

    by Antz

    Sounds great

  • July 28, 2007, 6:03 p.m. CST

    HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!!

    by wackybantha


  • July 28, 2007, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Cries of Ridley Scott raped my childhood....?

    by UltraMeerkat

    People who enjoying betting are offering favourables odds for this very talkback!

  • July 28, 2007, 6:05 p.m. CST


    by MinionX83

    Sweet mother of crap this looks awesome! :)

  • July 28, 2007, 6:06 p.m. CST


    by UltraMeerkat

    Why can't a director do what the fuck he wants with his own film? And even it he changes stuff in a way you don't like, why worry about it when you can just ignore it?

  • July 28, 2007, 6:07 p.m. CST

    Reveries of unicorns don't imply replicants?

    by wintocha67

    The interviewer doesn't understand, neither do I. Why? How? Huh?

  • July 28, 2007, 6:13 p.m. CST

    The artwork looks like Sweeney Todd?

    by dtpena

    That's odd

  • July 28, 2007, 6:17 p.m. CST


    by scratcher

    Why worry about what people write in talkbacks when you can just ignore it? It's my opinion, which is what these forums are for. <P> In the original I viewed the origami metal unicorn to be a metaphor for Rachael, meaning that Gaff appreciated that she was a unique living creature and he let her live out of respect for Dekker. My own opinion is that the film's message is stronger if Dekker represents humans. Besides, if he's a replicant, why does he pass the Voight-Kampff? Forgive my attachment to the original, but I saw it on opening night and probably more times since than any other film.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:19 p.m. CST

    I can't BELIEVE they they got Harrison Ford.

    by MaxTheSilent

    From what I've heard he's NEVER spoken of BLADE RUNNER.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:25 p.m. CST


    by scratcher

    Okay, so maybe I haven't actually watched the whole thing in a few years. On second thought he doesn't actually take the test, does he? Only Rachael and Leon do.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:26 p.m. CST

    I thought one of the points of the film was ...

    by wackybantha

    ....that humans and replicants are all living beings that deserve the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Deckard being a human or a replicant is cool either way, however, if he is a replicant, as Ridley Scott says, then that justs underlines that replicants are the equals of humans. They are not sub-human.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:31 p.m. CST

    Flawed film

    by lost.rules

    But I still love it. Just cause of Ridley I reckon.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:32 p.m. CST

    ...electric sheep

    by Swiss Trev

    I liked the original voice over - reminded me of the old private eye films from the forties/fifties.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:33 p.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    can't wait

  • July 28, 2007, 6:34 p.m. CST

    HEY MERRICK!!!!!!

    by wackybantha

    That post to says that the DVD debuts on DECEMBER 18, 2007 and that the EXCLUSIVE NEW YORK, L.A. THEATRICAL LAUNCH is set for October 5, 2007. WHO IS RIGHT???? Hey, I live in Chicagoland. It better come here or I guess I'm off to THE BIG APPLE!!!

  • July 28, 2007, 6:34 p.m. CST

    Now it's fixed

    by dtpena


  • July 28, 2007, 6:35 p.m. CST

    I meant to say that LINK to digitalbits.

    by wackybantha


  • July 28, 2007, 6:36 p.m. CST

    besides, how does it make sense?

    by scratcher

    Why would Dekker be a replicant anyway? Did they replace a human officer with a replicant? At what point? Why would they do it? Why would he be so inferior to Roy or Pris? Why wouldn't Tyrell recognize him? If Gaff knew that he was a replicant, why didn't anyone else, like Bryant? It doesn't seem to fit. <P> Why can't the unicorn in Dekker's dream also represent Rachael, and the recurrence simply be a great metaphor?

  • July 28, 2007, 6:41 p.m. CST


    by Merrick

    The DVD is in December; the NYC/LA theatrical release is Oct 5. My mix-up...thanks for asking.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:43 p.m. CST


    by scratcher

    I like both the original and his version that removed the VO. I don't really get why he had to shoot the window-crashing scene again, but I'm willing to give that a chance. It's just the removal of ambiguity about Dekker that bothers me, because it significantly alters the film's interpretation.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Most from BBC Doc "On the Edge of Blade Runner"

    by avmerlyn

    You can probably see it on You-tube or download a torrent. I guess they'll try to add some more junk to beef it up for this new DVD.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:45 p.m. CST

    region 2

    by DyceyDarko

    is the suitcase coming out in england? i wants it so bad i would risk syphallis to own it... and yes, that does mean i am willing to suck and awful lot of meat logs to get it

  • July 28, 2007, 6:46 p.m. CST

    Can't wait to see it on the big screen

    by SpencerTrilby

    and that comes from someone who HATES Blade Runner. Yeah, I said it...

  • July 28, 2007, 6:47 p.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    it's still ambiguous though. They're not coming out and definitively saying he is a replicant. Ridley Scott believes he is. Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer both believe he's human. Take your side and argue away. It's 1992 all over again!!

  • July 28, 2007, 6:49 p.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    No this is all completely new footage, Charles de Lauzirika conducted all the new interviews. It is not a rehash of the Channel 4 doc. This doc is 210 minutes long. The Channel 4 doc was 50 mins long.

  • July 28, 2007, 6:51 p.m. CST

    Sequel talk?

    by d1138

    Bad, bad idea, I think... though wasn't there once talk of a movie set in the same 'universe'? Anyway :

  • July 28, 2007, 7:03 p.m. CST

    Doc clips

    by tig.Valen

    The clips shown were from the Channel 4 doc 'Edge of Blade Runner'. It must be included in the whole documentry package.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:10 p.m. CST

    blade runner

    by Dollar Bird

    I just watched this movie last night for the umpteenth time, by coincidence. I never liked that Scott was sure that Dekkar was a replicant. I like the ambiguity, like several of you have voiced. I first watched it when my dad bought the extra long more-blood-more-breasts-more-Pris-freaking-out-after-being-shot VHS version in the mid 80s. That was a father-son moment if there ever was one. I just wish the groovy, blue, neon everywhere Struzan cover was on the 4 disk set. I like that more than the old movie poster.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:28 p.m. CST

    if Deckard is a replicant...

    by newc0253

    it shits on the whole contrast between Rutger Hauer's ubermensch and Deckard's weakling antics at the end. Then again, it makes sense that Ridley Scott would make a movie smarter than he was.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:29 p.m. CST

    The Definitive Version ...

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    ... was the first theatrical release. If it ain't broke ...<p>Ridley Scott talking about this "clever" idea that Deckard is a replicant, reminds me of "we can turn BEANS into PEAS". Wow nice job making a semi-sophisticated comment on the nature of humanity into a cheap gotcha gimmick. Boo! Boo!<p>Most of the time it's best if the artist gets to do what they want but let's face it, in the case of Blade Runner, a little studio tampering went a long way.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:32 p.m. CST

    I don't care

    by flossygomez

    whether he's a replicant or not, to me it's an incredibly dull subject. The thing that grabs me is the world Ridley created...because as sad and melancholy and damaged as it is, it is beautiful and I want to live there.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:34 p.m. CST

    I'll take the briefcase for 79.98, Alex.

    by m.dung

    Fuck yeah! In my top 5 all time. Been waitin' for this since??? Wake up, time to die!!!

  • July 28, 2007, 7:36 p.m. CST

    I just pre ordered mine..

    by disfigurehead

    I'm getting the briefcase, Hells yeah

  • July 28, 2007, 7:37 p.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    The production design is fantastic of course (credit to Scott? I don't know about that), but the good thing about Blade Runner is that it manages to be more than just eye candy.<p>I can't see how him being a replicant or not is dull. It's not the mystery of his true identity that intrigues, but rather how his identity impacts the themes of the film. And it impacts them fundamentally, in my opinion. There couldn't be more at stake.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:38 p.m. CST

    Would love to see a remake....

    by Gorrister

    ...but only if it stayed true to the original novel. I liked a lot of the ideas that were dropped in favor of the movie script. Mind you, I love the movie too. But I'd love to see a faithful adaptation.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:39 p.m. CST

    Will this be the 'perfect' version I've always wanted?

    by performingmonkey

    There are a few things that slightly fuck up Blade Runner that if removed or changed really would make it the all-time classic we all know it deserves to be.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:41 p.m. CST

    The first time I saw Blade Runner, I hated it, and...

    by The Dum Guy

    Thought it was boring, because I was expecting some sort of action movie, but with sci-fi elements.<br><br> Of course I was eleven years-old and over time it is one of my favorite movies, I even found an old VHS copy of the original theatrical presentation at a pawn shop, for like two bucks. Now, if I buy the deluxe edition of this one, I think I'll have duplicates of my old VHS and DVDs of it, oh well.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:42 p.m. CST

    Remember the Blade Runner PC game?

    by ScamsAndFlams

    It was fucking fantastic. Must have come out like 98-99, somewhere around there. Just thought of it.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:45 p.m. CST

    I'm fine with the Director's Cut, no need for more

    by Demosthenes2

    I just have this bad feeling that this is going to be like the Star Wars Special Editions. The new Joanna Cassidy stuff will probably look really out of place, what with her being 25 years older and all. If they're doing that de-aging CGI they did with X-Men 3, well, it looked really awkward in that movie... What's the point of updating the effects work and adding new footage to sci-fi movies? Let them speak for their time and also show their place in FX history.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:46 p.m. CST

    There was one not accounted for.

    by jbs0209

    Dr Gonzo:<br> The one not accounted for was a "Mary" (IIRC) that was a house wife model.<br> She got dropped (never shot) due to budget issues. The scene where Deckard's Boss mentions here was shot prior to her removal and never corrected.

  • July 28, 2007, 7:46 p.m. CST

    There is a reason I have held off buying Blade Runner

    by Grando

    and this is it. I fucking love that film, mutha-fucka! Bring on the ultra version beotch!

  • July 28, 2007, 7:54 p.m. CST

    Joanna - New scenes?

    by m.dung

    I was about to say that there isn't enough bondo on this planet to make her look good after seeing her stint on SFU. Her Youtube clip didn't look bad. Then again, I've had more than a few tonight.

  • July 28, 2007, 8:06 p.m. CST

    Saw the Director's Cut at the Paramount...

    by TheRealSeveren

    here in Austin at a dbl feature with 2001 a few years back. Makes it pretty obvious that Deckard is a replicant. If he is though then why does he get his asked kicked by Rutger Hauer? That's what makes that fight so good...a human wouldnt have a chance and Deckard would have been a dead man if Rutger hadnt expired.

  • July 28, 2007, 8:07 p.m. CST

    Here we go...

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    If you grew up watching the Theatrical Version (or whatever other versions that don't include the unicorn dream) Deckard is NOT a Replicant. It's that simple. Gaff's little token is nothing more than a message that says he knows about Rachel and that she and Deckard are together. (One might even go so far as to say that as a fellow cop, he's giving Deckard a chance.)<P>If Scott wants to continue dropping the ambiguous concept of the unicorn, that's fine. However, for Deckard to be a Replicant goes against the central theme/conflict of the movie and leaves a LOT of unanswered questions and inconsistencies in the film.<P>Regardless, it's still one Hell of a movie.

  • July 28, 2007, 8:14 p.m. CST

    The Joanna / Zhora Scenes

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    From what I've read and understand, these reshoots were done simply to digitally replace the more than obvious stunt-double that appears in the street shooting scene (which always kind of stuck out like a sore thumb). Apparently, the end result is quite remarkable in its seemlessness.<P>I don't believe I've heard of any other major revisions. Anyone heard othewise?

  • July 28, 2007, 8:15 p.m. CST

    The original book?

    by Underdogthe3rd

    Anyone who read the Do the Androids dreams... (I forgot the rest), answer please. In that, Deckard it is or not a robot?

  • July 28, 2007, 8:15 p.m. CST

    Ohhhhh, do I want that little suitcase...

    by Alonzo Mosely

    It has a signed 'letter' from Sir Ridley Scott, I hope it is a letter to his plumber requesting he explain the outrageous bill, or something equally great... However it will probably be a letter saying how great Blade Runner is and thanks for the $75...

  • July 28, 2007, 8:38 p.m. CST


    by Wee Willie

    Why would the LAPD hire a replicant to kill replicants? They'd be violating the very laws they're trying to uphold. Makes no sense and adds nothing significant to the themes of the film. Although I might explain Ford's sumnombulistic performance.

  • July 28, 2007, 8:40 p.m. CST


    by Wee Willie

    One this I love about Tarantino is how he said he'd never do a director's cut of his movies because the film you saw in theatres was the film he wanted to make. Going back and re-editing old movies is like a man eating his own asshole. Let's move on. They should remake Blade Runner using CG effects, starring Ashton Kutcher as Rick Deckard.

  • July 28, 2007, 8:43 p.m. CST

    Underdogthe3rd....Of Electric Sheep

    by Wyrdy the Gerbil

    In the book Deckhard is definately NOT a replicant

  • July 28, 2007, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner was the first R-rated film I watched

    by QuinnTheEskimo

    So it holds a special place in my heart. I just want to say that the restored video over on yahoo looks spectacular. I didn't think this film would ever look that good.

  • July 28, 2007, 9:10 p.m. CST

    Fucken wow

    by LittleDudes

    VK Suitcase for the win

  • July 28, 2007, 9:30 p.m. CST

    Briefcase on Amazon 30% off

    by Maceox

    54 dollars baby, preorder away.

  • July 28, 2007, 9:30 p.m. CST


    by lutz

    There is a third unicorn that is in all versions of the movie on JF Sebastians desk when he is asleep (dreaming?), since we know JF does design on the replicants this is another hint Deckard is a replicant (It is there on the top right hand corner of the screen when he is asleep at his desk just after Pris paints her panda-eyes).

  • July 28, 2007, 9:37 p.m. CST

    wyrdy the Gerbil is right...

    by wookie1972

    Deckard is not a replicant or android (the word replicant is not even in the book). The adaptation was very loose. The very notion that Deckard is a replicant is Scott's personal hobby horse, and was never in the script. As director, Scott has the final say, but neither Dick's nor any of the screenwriters' version of the story had Deckard as anything other than human.

  • July 28, 2007, 9:40 p.m. CST

    Wee Willie...

    by slapshot

    ...why *wouldn't* they send a replicant to kill the escapees? They must know Roy is in the batch that got loose, they know he's just gonna kill any human cop they send after him; why not send Dek-the-Rep after him? If he kills a cop, we've lost a man; if he kills an unwitting replicant, eh, we can always order another one...

  • July 28, 2007, 9:43 p.m. CST

    Still want a move of "Do Androids..."

    by ZeroCorpse

    Blade Runner is great, but it's NOT "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" and I think a loyal version would be nice to see.<p> Oh, wait... This is Hollywood we're talking about. The same Hollywood that cast Will "Aw Hell Naww" Smith as Neville in the vampire-less "I Am Legend." AND the meaningless "I, Robot".. <p> Nevermind. The book is obviously over Hollywood's head.

  • July 28, 2007, 9:44 p.m. CST

    "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe."

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    It would be a shame for the significance of that statement to be lost on a non-human now wouldn't it?

  • July 28, 2007, 9:47 p.m. CST

    Well it was in *somebody's* script...

    by slapshot

    From the August issue of Empire, with 20 pages devoted to Blade Runner, and an exclusive interview with Harrison Ford: "I thought we'd settled that replicant issue early on, before we began filming... I thought that I had secured Ridley's agreement about Deckard not being a replicant before we started. But he must have still had some reservations about that. Or maybe Ridley wanted to have it both ways." 20 pages of great stuff, well worth the ten bucks...

  • July 28, 2007, 9:53 p.m. CST

    slapshot, get the Paul Gammon book Future Noir...

    by wookie1972

    ...for the full story. This all started because Hampton Fancher's script had a scene in which Deckard contemplates his own mortality and muses that he's not all that different from Batty, that "in a way, we were brothers." Scott took that literally, but it was never the intention of Fancher or David Peoples. Dick's book (which is full of dry humour that is totally not in the movie) has a very funny scene in which a fellow cop suspects Deckard of being an android, but it's 100% clear that he's not.

  • July 28, 2007, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Replicants ARE human.

    by wackybantha

    But they were made in a lab.

  • July 28, 2007, 9:55 p.m. CST

    bacci40 -that's closer to the truth...

    by wookie1972

    ...However Dick never intended it to be taken literally.

  • July 28, 2007, 9:59 p.m. CST

    Ford allegedly gave a bad narration on purpose...

    by wookie1972

    ...because he didn't want it to be used.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:01 p.m. CST

    i read somewhere that

    by lucid dreamstate

    blade runner would be released this year in theaters. i hope they decide to open it in others cities besides new york and l.a. has anyone heard that it might be released nationwide? if this has been covered already, then i guess i will be crucified on here.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Mr. Nice Gaius

    by mr. brownstone

    The difference is Batty doesn't know Deckard is a replicant and neither does Deckard.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:02 p.m. CST

    yes the blade runner game as awesome

    by ulcer

    yes the blade runner game, from WestWood Studio, as awesome<br><br> I remember the scenes of the movie much better because of the hours spend inside them in the game. It was a point-and-click game

  • July 28, 2007, 10:05 p.m. CST

    About bloody time!

    by Bulvai

    Incredible! Been waiting for this for too many years. At least they're doing it up right.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:05 p.m. CST

    unicorn proof

    by bootle2

    The proof is not that he's daydreaming about unicorns. The proof is that adama KNOWS he does this, as shown by the origami.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:05 p.m. CST

    PS, merrick blows goat nads

    by bootle2

    quit your job merrick, and quit BREATHING!!!

  • July 28, 2007, 10:07 p.m. CST

    fuck the director's cut

    by sammylou

    I liked the theatrical cut better cause Ford's narration was awesome

  • July 28, 2007, 10:14 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    good point about the origami. i am going to rewatch my d.v.d. tomorrow. this post has me interested in watching the movie again. i hope they release it nationwide. one of the greatest sci-fi films.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:14 p.m. CST

    about Ford's narration

    by Carn82

    (according to the ever so reliable wiki) After Steven Spielberg praised Ford and showed some Raiders rushes to Deeley and Scott they hired Ford. Due to the initially poor reception of Blade Runner and friction with Scott, Ford has usually avoided discussing the film, but on July 5, 2007, he revealed, "When we started shooting it had been tacitly agreed that the version of the film that we had agreed upon was the version without voiceover narration. It was a fucking nightmare. I thought that the film had worked without the narration. But now I was stuck re-creating that narration. And I was obliged to do the voiceovers for people that did not represent the director's interests." Personally, the first version of BR Ive seen was the Directors Cut, the "original theatrical version" is definitely a lesser movie from my perspective.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:15 p.m. CST

    mr. brownstone

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    I can only say that if you're watching a cut of the film without the unicorn dream, he's not a Replicant. It would only be significant to you, the viewer, if you have this information (subsequently knowing that the characters do not).

  • July 28, 2007, 10:18 p.m. CST

    is deckard a replicant in

    by lucid dreamstate

    the original source material? i haven't read it yet. how did philip k. dick address the situation in the book? is it mentioned?

  • July 28, 2007, 10:18 p.m. CST

    How I love this film

    by Lornsorrow

    and allllllll the controversy and debate it has birthed. Truly a great film, great atmosphere, great pacing, great acting, great everything. I don't know how many times I've seen it, both clear headed and in altered states marijuana consciousness. I also drove down and saw the "Director's Cut" in the theater in LA back in the early 90's. So, I just ordered the Briefcase with the 5 discs. Done deal! I also highly recommend the book mentioned above written by Paul Sammon (It's Sammon, not Gammon), "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner".

  • July 28, 2007, 10:20 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    Thanks for the correction - I don't know why I wrote Gammon. It's a very interesting book.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:21 p.m. CST


    by Birdys Piano Teacher

    I like the cover art for the 2 Disc Set because it's Drew Struzan, but I want the whole lot.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:22 p.m. CST

    i'd suck two dick for a flying car, straight up

    by gride9000

    seriously, do you feel me on this one? Even if they said I just had to suck one dick, I'd say "No sir, that flying car is worth two dicks sucked."

  • July 28, 2007, 10:24 p.m. CST

    what is ridley scott's definitive vision?

    by lucid dreamstate

    narration or no narration?

  • July 28, 2007, 10:24 p.m. CST

    hey wtf

    by Dkev00

    Ridley swiped that unicorn scene from Legend, one of his other movies.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:24 p.m. CST

    lucid dreamstate...

    by wookie1972

    In the novel, Deckard is definitely not a replicant. For one thing, the word "replicant" is never used in the novel. For another, it's obvious that Deckard is very much human in all that that entails. He's almost a bit of a nebbish in the book, and there is no question of him running off with Rachael. In fact, he ends up going back to his wife.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:28 p.m. CST

    thanks wookie

    by lucid dreamstate

    i have watched the film maybe twice. i am going to read the novel soon. philip k. dick is not easy for me to get into. i like the films based on his literature, but the books don't grab me initially like isaac asimov or stephen king's books do. i need to read this one though.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:38 p.m. CST

    in the book replicants were

    by Noddy93

    in the book replicants were androids. less human than replicants but more so than robots. "more human than human is our motto" there were mulitples of each model and Deckard was not mentioned as being anything other than human. the movie and book are quite different... equally great, but different. I would dearly love to have a movie based more on the novel. the entire religiosity in the book is spell-binding.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:41 p.m. CST

    Scott said Dekard definately is a replicant in the

    by Judge Dredds Dirty Undies

    C4 Documentary. Just another reason why Scott sucks these days. Ambiguity about Dekard is one of the things that makes BR such a great film.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:48 p.m. CST

    In the book.

    by lutz

    They have a bone marrow test that proves conclusively if someone is an android or not, Deckard is tested and tests as a human.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:50 p.m. CST

    replicant or not

    by scratcher

    Either way it's an amazing film. Crazy that it didn't do well on release. I remember thinking it was the greatest film ever when I saw it, and then talking to someone who hated it because it was raining all the time. Sheesh.<p> Fantastic designs by Syd Mead as well.<P>Just imagine: Tron and Blade Runner in the same summer, and both were buried by E.-fucking-T.. Ugh.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:50 p.m. CST

    lucid - he's definitely an aquired taste.

    by wookie1972

    You have to understand that the novel takes a very different path than the movie. Many of the characters are completely different- much more than in, say Lord Of The Rings. Book-Deckard and movie-Deckard are not the same in the least.

  • July 28, 2007, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Can't! Wait!

    by LaserPants

    I need this DVD like yesterday. Its a work of sheer brilliance and aching beauty. Love it!!! Easily one of greatest films ever made.

  • July 28, 2007, 11:05 p.m. CST

    4 versions in HD

    by Mace Tofu

    + Toys! = I'm sold. : )

  • July 28, 2007, 11:30 p.m. CST


    by jfp2007

    There's no arguing...Decker is a replicant. Ridley Scott right out and said it...he is a Replicant.

  • July 28, 2007, 11:31 p.m. CST


    by jfp2007

    Ford didn't give a bad narration "on purpose." The man is being paid and whether he wants to do it or not has jack and shit to do with it. If he didn't do it the way Scott or whoever wanted it then he'd be fired.

  • July 28, 2007, 11:33 p.m. CST

    Queefer Bukkake

    by jfp2007

    The narration is supposed to sound "lifeless." It's a Noir and narration in Films Noir is supposed to sound like that. They almost always do and always will.

  • July 28, 2007, 11:47 p.m. CST

    Monster. Lucasism & Deckard as replicant

    by half vader

    isn't the practice of using new techniques, it's the practice of withdawing the prints of the original version of the film so no-one can see them again (as different to the laserdisc transfer on sub-par non-anamorphic DVD) ever. WHile also sitting on boards supporting the restoration and upkeep of classic films as timecapsules, making sure they're AVAILABLE to the public, whatever the subsequent opinion of the filmmaker. To me, THAT'S Lucasism. At least we're getting the different cuts here, nothing's being pulled forever. However one thing I don't understand with DVD and especially now with high-def, is why almost everyone barr Cameron keeps putting them on different discs rather tham seamless branching??? Is it that the jumps and load times are still too damn slow? <p> And just in general, why can't replicants be different to each other? Everyone keeps going on about Deckard not having the same abilities, but replicants can be and are specialised in the movie. I love the irony of the police force using a replicant as it's logical to assume they'd be "the best" and have that old "magic" in tracking them down - but why would a detective be stronger rather than smarter? Especially as it makes SENSE you don't want him to know he's a replicant. We know Bryant is a 'small' man and the brass wouldn't let him in on something like that, and Gaff's unicorn is still consistent with his other origami 'comments' in the film. If that's the way you choose to see it. The lack of emotion is a nice metaphor, whether he's human or replicant. So is the film having them be flesh and blood, not androids. These are all things that in my small opinion give the film life and room for rumination after it finishes (not 'ends'). The best flicks have a life outside themselves in terms of their themes (as opposed to the literal idea of what actually went on). The lines are more blurry and the central question of what is it to be human that much stronger as a result. Deckard may be detached, but in the end his 'link' to Rachel is more human than human. ;) <p> I hate that Scott says outright "he's a replicant" - for someone who's such a showman it seems weirdly out of character. I love the idea however that Deckard MAY be one. That bit of ambiguity makes all the difference in the world to me. That he PROBABLY is, not just "he is". After all, the very next shot after the unicorn is Deckard 'fixing' the sideways (!) photo - the 'manufactured memory' of one of the replicants. HOWEVER if you choose to view it with Rachel in mind, it makes sense that he is thinking about her in both these instances too. <p> As for that unicorn shot, how many fucking takes to get the horse to shake its head like that right as it exits frame/on the cut? Beautiful, whether you like it there, in Legend (man, haven't seen that for ages), or not at all. <p> Sorry for the enormous rant. I could talk the leg off a chair.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:01 a.m. CST

    Climbing walls with broken fingers??

    by Billyeveryteen

    Replicant.<p>It's why Roy knew Deckard's name.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:04 a.m. CST


    by half vader

    As quoted Ford did vehemently disagree with the naration. And while yes his character may be tired and lifeless that's lucky for Ford who absolutely didn't want to be there, so both things are sort of true. Especially as narration is done in POST ("he'd be fired!") like ADR. Read that book for Ford's state of mind at the end of the shoot. Then he was asked to do something that both he AND Scott didn't want. Sure he fulfilled his contractural obligation, but wasn't happy about it, hence all that followed. Why is it all or nothing with you guys? Same with you Scratcher, I like much of what you said here, but why do you have to show you love BR and Tron - by trashing E.T.? For crying out loud man! <p> Oh I meant to say before that Scott saying he is and ambiguity in the film can ALSO co-exist. Those comments exist outside the film (thank God).

  • July 29, 2007, 12:12 a.m. CST

    New SFX means that Zhora shot first

    by The Ghost of Scrappy Doo

    Which is what George Lucas, I mean Ridley Scott, intended to happen all along. Now the saga is complete.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:48 a.m. CST

    I hate the new unicorn scene!!!

    by My Ass Smells

    Why did Ridley feel the need to change it? It went from Deckard having a drunken dream to Deckard looking like he was remembering it?

  • July 29, 2007, 12:50 a.m. CST


    by scratcher

    The director is only one part of a film. None of the writers said that he was a replicant (read the interview in Empire), Ford said he wasn't a replicant, and Philip K. Dick meant for him to be human. <P> Unless Ridley's filmed a new shot where someone rips Deckard's face off ala Yul Brenner and reveals circuitry, it's still up to interpretation. Read Barthes: once the piece is created, even the author loses control of the ultimate meaning.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:57 a.m. CST

    Totally Hot Sean Young with another.....

    by smajors

    I am here at comic con and went to a few parties and i swear to god i saw sean young --still HOT btw VERY COZY with this other hot chick. i asked the guy i was with who she was and he told me it was pkd's daughter!!!! I wasnt even smokin anything..i swear its true--more PLZZZZ

  • July 29, 2007, 1:29 a.m. CST


    by half vader

    Although if he pulled his face off there'd be blood and brains and stuff under there, remember? Eww.

  • July 29, 2007, 1:30 a.m. CST

    Just recently

    by Doctor Phibes

    I actually just saw this film for the first time. I guess it was just one of those situation where I'd "meant to" see it for so long but never "gotten around to it." I watched the version without the narration and it was good but I think I'll like this version better. And I so hope you're right about the theater release!

  • July 29, 2007, 2:34 a.m. CST

    New Resident Evil trailer in HD

    by PezQ

    ...over at tsekiii

  • July 29, 2007, 2:34 a.m. CST

    Blade Runner is a masterpiece but Ridley is wrong

    by whytee

    Deckard is not a replicant. Sure, maybe that's Ridley's interpretation, but Philip K. Dick's work is visionary for a reason. There are things rippling beneath the surface of everything he wrote. I love Ridley; he's one of the greatest filmmakers of all time, but he needs to cede this point. The least he can do, out of respect for Dick, is to leave it ambiguous.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:41 a.m. CST

    In this set everyone wins!

    by Sledge Hammer

    I'm amazed to see any level of negativity about this release to be honest. Prefer the original theatrical realease? You got it. The slightly longer European release, yep that's here too. Think the 90's Directors Cut was the shit? It's here for your viewing pleasure. Curious about the fabled workprint? Go for the five disc edition and you can have that too. And on top of all this there's a new cut of the film included, which good or bad, will no doubt make fascinating viewing to see Scott's take on Blade Runner reflected at this point in his life and career. And the best of the lot? No single version of the film has been thrown away or deemed as being irrelevant. On top of all that you have a brand new 3 hour plus doco, 45 minutes worth of deleted scenes, and other features out the wazoo. How could any Blade Runner fan of any version of Blade Runner not be happy with such a complete and awesome dvd set? Plus it's being released in stages so that you can just buy the new cut, or just buy an edition with all four major version, for those that don't want to go the full hardcore specially packaged set route. They couldn't have done better by Blade Runner fans, and still there's bitching. Sheesh.<p>Add to which, if your greatest complaint is that Ridley Scott dares to have an opinion these days on whether or not Deckard is a replicant, then grow the fuck up already. Art is subjective, therefore the only opinion that should really matter to you is your own, unless you're some kind of (electric) sheep, following popular opinion. If you believe Deckard is a replicant, then he is. If you believe him to be human, then he is. That's the beauty of ambiguity and interpretation. And if this new version is less ambiguous in a certain direction, then that still doesn't negate the ambiguity of previous versions or the impression you personally took from them.<p>My opinion anyway. Personally I'm a hardcore Blade Runner fan, so I already have the briefcase set pre-ordered, the first time I've ever pre-ordered anything this far in advance. December can't come soon enough.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:44 a.m. CST

    The unicorn scene has been completely changed!

    by My Ass Smells

    The unicorn scene is completely different. The piano keys Deckard plays has been changed. Ridley's new edit with new close-ups of Harrison's face now makes it seem like a daydream instead of a drunken dream. They removed the short pan of the top of the piano showing all the old photographs. The obvious change was the new added unicorn scene. The color of dream has been changed from yellow to blue/white. Plus the entire dream is now with sound effects. From the stomping of the feet, the horse yell, and that lighthouse noise. Youtube the original on youtube and compare!

  • July 29, 2007, 3:33 a.m. CST

    The only thing missing from that briefcase

    by BenBraddock

    is a pair of Rachael's panties, it would seem. Looks great in other words, though I'm gonna have to go with the 4-disc, though, which will actually fit in my bookcase. As for the new version, I hope they fixed the see-through flying cars etc, and replaced the truck-driver-in-a-wig stunt double for Zhora. And yeah, Joanna Cassidy is now MILF hot, didn't anyone here watch "Six Feet Under"?!

  • July 29, 2007, 3:42 a.m. CST

    it makes no sense that he is a replicant

    by Colonel_Blimp

    Can anyone come up with a single reason why deckard should be a replicant. And no, i dont mean "cause Ridley says so, and it's Ridley's movie". Bullshit. Someone else quoted Barthes here, and he's absolutely right. The birth of the reader is paid for by the death of the author. And i dont mean "proof" like adama knows about the unicorn dream. I mean HOW DOES IT SERVE THE STORY AND THE THEMES OF THE MOVIE THAT DECKARD IS A REPLICANT? Except for it being a tacked on twist, what purpose does it serve? It makes much more sense that deckard is human. for one, the love story between rachel and deckard is much less poignant if they're both the same "species", and the contrast between batty and deckard is nullified. Batty, being synthetic, displays much more human traits and emotion than the monotone (and non synthetic) deckard does. ie. batty is "more human than human" - which is a pretty darn important point in the movie's theme of what makes us human. don't get me wrong, I'm all for ambiugity, but don't spell it out! who want's to see a movie of a robot hunting down other robots and then falling in love with another robot? pointless. unless they are gigantic robots from outer space and transform, of course. that would be awesome.

  • July 29, 2007, 3:52 a.m. CST

    This talkback is homosexual

    by Doc_Strange

    Replicant, not a replicant. Narration, no narration. Both versions of the movie are in there and people are going to be happy with either one. Everyone wins.

  • July 29, 2007, 3:59 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    Wow. I never even noticed the workprint is on the 5 disc set. That's def the one to buy then.

  • July 29, 2007, 4:02 a.m. CST

    Im glad Ridley didn't make ZHORA SHOOT FIRST.

    by DoctorWho?

    Didn't really need the 2 skanks in the Go-Go booth though.

  • July 29, 2007, 4:13 a.m. CST

    Holy friggin cow! WOW!

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Must. Have.

  • July 29, 2007, 4:35 a.m. CST


    by kiddae

    So wait, whats IN the four disc set? Does it include the remastered Director's Cut that was released as a single disc a little while ago?

  • July 29, 2007, 4:37 a.m. CST


    by kiddae

    I am an idiot.

  • July 29, 2007, 4:38 a.m. CST

    My favourite film of all time looks better than ever!

    by HarryBlackPotter

    Christmas can't come quick enough.

  • July 29, 2007, 4:39 a.m. CST

    I am an idiot part 2.

    by kiddae

    Oh, it's all at the link. Sorry. Okay, so now my question is: how the heck did they fit three cuts of the film onto one disc?

  • July 29, 2007, 4:47 a.m. CST


    by elohel

  • July 29, 2007, 4:53 a.m. CST

    Same Universe

    by Rolnikov

    d1138 mentioned above talk of another movie in the same universe - that was Soldier. There were references to the same stuff Roy mentioned in his speech about outer space, and some of the cars from Blade Runner were supposed to be visible among all the junk on the planet Kurt Russell gets dumped on. There were a couple of sequel novels by KW Jeter. And the tv series, Total Recall 2070, was much more like a Blade Runner series than a Total Recall one.

  • July 29, 2007, 5:01 a.m. CST

    Col Blimp

    by half vader

    I thought I did! I put forth a reason I thought was fair anyway. Obviously posts over 6 lines never get read. <p> At least that simpleton Queefer is gone (off to fuck his mum I guess as it was he that mentioned it after all). <p> Why can TBers not grasp the concept that we can exist in a world where both the film is ambiguous about Deckard's being one or the other AND, OUTSIDE the reality of the film, Scott believes unequivocally that he is?! One does NOT discount the other in this case (unless he has extra footage I haven't seen where Ford looks at the camera and says, "Hey folks! I'm a replicant!")! <p> That's like Scratcher and his comment about E.T. The world can handle them BOTH being good, or one being successful & the other not. What's with TBers and everything having to be "good cop, bad cop"? Aaaarrgghh!

  • July 29, 2007, 5:14 a.m. CST

    I hate this movie

    by Andy Warhol Jr

    Never liked it, never will.

  • July 29, 2007, 5:14 a.m. CST

    half vader

    by Colonel_Blimp

    i read your post, but while your points rationalize that Deck could be a replicant from a logical POV, you don't (IMO) justify him being a replicant from a narrative/thematic POV. I agree on your other point though (the one not discounting the other bit).

  • July 29, 2007, 5:17 a.m. CST

    E.T. vs. Blade Runner

    by Colonel_Blimp

    I'm fairly certain had E.T. not existed the box office for Blade Runner would still remain pretty much the same. It's not excactly like the two competed in the same demographic.

  • July 29, 2007, 5:31 a.m. CST

    The Blade Runner PC game

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    was truly a great adventure game. Came out in November 1997. Always hoped for a sequel.

  • July 29, 2007, 5:33 a.m. CST

    E.T. vs. Blade Runner

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    They didn't exactly compete, but the moviegoing audience were much more in the mood for cute, dumb, light sci-fi entertainment than for dark, gritty sci-fi.

  • July 29, 2007, 6:24 a.m. CST

    Blade Runner is good, but too cold

    by CuervoJones

    and i prefer the studio´s cut.

  • July 29, 2007, 7:38 a.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    "Ford didn't give a bad narration "on purpose." The man is being paid and whether he wants to do it or not has jack and shit to do with it. If he didn't do it the way Scott or whoever wanted it then he'd be fired." Um, how could they fire him at the end of the shoot?

  • July 29, 2007, 7:39 a.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    The voice you hear is the crosswalk saying "cross now."

  • July 29, 2007, 7:52 a.m. CST

    The strippers in the hockey masks...

    by wookie1972

    Were not part of the 2007 reshoot. There's a still of them in Future Noir. Everything I've read supports the idea that Ford hated the narration and tried to sabotage it. It wasn't in "from the beginning" - for one thing, the original novel is not written in first-person. It had been taken out and put back in at several times, and rewritten to the point that neither screenwriter knew who wrote what. Scott has last say as the director according to auteur theory, but everybody else has said that Deckard is not a replicant. The idea that he misinterpreted Fancher's screenplay makes sense to me.

  • July 29, 2007, 7:56 a.m. CST

    TV Version?

    by Areyouarepli-CANorarepli-CANT

    Normally, i hate it when movies are edited and re-dubbed for tv but in Blade Runner's case, it produced a line that was better than the original. When Batty confronts Tyrell he originally says at one point "I want more life...fucker!" In the tv version, this was changed to "I want more life...father!" Makes a change to hear a line that changes profanity which actually makes sense. Melon farmer anyone?

  • July 29, 2007, 8:09 a.m. CST

    Uh... no.

    by Drunken Rage

    Am I the only person who thinks "Blade Runner" just isn't very good? Great visuals, yeah, but Ford is wooden in everything he does, the "friends" Sebastian makes are ridiculous, etc. Doesn't matter which version, although the narration is horrible.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:12 a.m. CST


    by AllieJamison

    Thaaaat's the spirit!

  • July 29, 2007, 8:31 a.m. CST


    by sonnyboo2

    I am a Blade Runner fanatic. Seeing the new Zhora footage on Yahoo made me smile a lot. I am pleased to see either a digital head replacement or even entirely new shots of Joanna Cassidy replacing the stuntwoman (or man) who played Zhora in Slow motion in the original versions. This was a laughing point for a movie with very few laughs and one not intended. I can't wait to get the 5 disc set. I even want the work print. A little disappoint that the BBC doucmentary did NOT make the cut since it was never released in the U.S. proper.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:37 a.m. CST

    Hang on, Deckard is not a replicant

    by half vader

    ... he's a repliCAN!

  • July 29, 2007, 8:58 a.m. CST

    On the Edge of Blade Runner

    by kwisatzhaderach

    is not a BBC documentary. It was made for Channel 4.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:59 a.m. CST


    by scratcher

    No one else cares? It's been one of the most influential films of all time. I was just watching the Making of "Renaissance" last night, and it was the main influence on that film. The way we looked at the future was changed by Blade Runner.<P> I don't think that anyone involved in the Replican/Replican't discussion is whining about the new boxed set. We're just involved in a good discussion of the material, which is what any author would be proud of.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:59 a.m. CST


    by kwisatzhaderach

    It's not overrated. It's a magnificent piece of filmmaking. Sombre, visually stunning and thought provoking. "Nothing the god of bio-mechanics wouldn't let you into heaven for."

  • July 29, 2007, 9:13 a.m. CST

    ThMotoko Kusanagie - Blade Runner PC game

    by Swiss Trev

    Yup - worked on it. Not the greatest experience of my life but probably better than the cast that worked on the film by all accounts. To be honest I felt a bit flat when I watched the film for the first time on VHS – sadly have never had the chance to see it at a cinema. But it’s a film that has grown more and more on me as I’ve got older (ahemm…now mid to late 30’s I’m afraid) to the point where it’s easily in my top ten all time films I’d take to a desert island that has electricity, a TV & dvd/vhs player. I actually read ‘Do Androids dream of electric sheep’ about 10 years ago and as far as I can remember there is no reference to Deckard being a replicant – or indeed android (pretty sure the word replicant is never used in the novel) Sometimes a directors cut is good, sometimes it isn’t…..thought ‘The Abyss’ suffered for it even though the tidal wave sequence was cool to see (obviously not from the point of view of someone on the beach!) whereas the Aliens directors cut definitely was a better film (except for the sequence where Newt’s father discovers the Alien ship and gets ‘huggered’) …the addition of the sentry guns sequence goes a long way to explaining the quote from the theatrical version “…all we need now is a pack of cards”

  • July 29, 2007, 9:24 a.m. CST

    Wow, he doesn't even know his own movie.

    by Photoman

    It's interesting how Scott analyzes his movie...too bad he's wrong. Decker wasn't a replicant. He was a human. Doesn't really matter what Scott or Ford or anyone says after the movie is made...because if it's not on the screen, it doesn't exist. I don't care what they say about back-story or anything else. If it wasn't told or shown or even implied in the movie, it doesn't exist. Sorry, showing a unicorn means nothing. Scott can go on and on about how Decker was a replicant. If he was so adamant about it, then he should have actually filmed something that explained that. Or even have filmed something that showed a little hint at it. As it is, NOTHING implies that. The dream sequence, no matter how much Scott may say it does, doesn't imply that Decker is a replicant.

  • July 29, 2007, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Decker as Replicant


    I agree nothing directly points to it...but the book is called "do androids dream of electric sheep" so the dream with a magical non-existent creature is a metaphor for something. Maybe hes a unicorn. Maybe Sean Young is a man. A sexy man.

  • July 29, 2007, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Anybody else pissed off....


    ...that we dont have "pleasure" model robots that look like Daryl Hannah? What kind of PG future are we living in? Ha!

  • July 29, 2007, 9:43 a.m. CST


    by HeWhoCannotBeNamed

    Thanks so much for the Iron Man footage. I wasn't looking for it, but lept at your post anyway. Awesome. Can't wait. Even moreso now. <P> Replicant or not, I continue to believe he is human. That's how I wish to view it, but it is fun to ponder it. Love that we get the workprint. Hope the extra gore and international tidbits are in his Final Cut. If not, well we get five versions. Too sweet. Already pre-ordered mine. 55 bucks is a very paltry price for what uber fans get in that briefcase. Nice. Oh, and the game kicked ass. I always wanted a sequel and/or remake too. Perhaps something is in the works....

  • July 29, 2007, 9:45 a.m. CST

    Blade Runner PC game

    by d1138 the atmosphere down perfect, some original voice actors as well. Though I remember the "adventure" being a little lacking--I "solved" it without doing very much. Shoulda been more like a LucasArts adventure from back in their heyday. Still have my copy of it--somebody convince me I should go back and play it again.

  • July 29, 2007, 9:47 a.m. CST

    One of the greatest film scores ever

    by HeWhoCannotBeNamed

    That's right, ever. Stellar stuff.

  • July 29, 2007, 9:47 a.m. CST


    by Swiss Trev

    .....hmm, tricky one. I see your point totally (I still like to think of Deckard as a human) but at the end of the day who are we to argue with the man that made the film ( well as a few hundred other skilled artisans)'s a tricky one...but because there was nothing in the original theatrical release that hinted at Deckard being a replicant doesn't mean that’s what R.Scott originally intended or imagined…..hmm, halcyon memories can be a bitch! an aside I still listen to the Vangelis BR score at least once a day, every day – not sad, it’s just on my ‘working’ i-Tunes list….you know, some people have music they always listen to whilst ‘driving’, I have a list (11 hours plus) that I listen to day after day whilst working as freelance CG artist…..never get bored (others include the Jurassic Park score, Indy Jones score, Star Wars opening score, some chemical bros, a couple of Rod Zombie and a lot of ‘Wired’s Atom Bomb….man! end up clicking the mouse in time to the beat!… definitely makes you work faster I’m sure. ;)

  • July 29, 2007, 9:56 a.m. CST


    by 88keyz

    Does it irritate anyone else that we have to spend $80 (probably closer to $100 here in Canada) to get the version with the workprint release? They know that this is the one that everyone will want to see and that is why they only put it on the most expensive release! Bastards, I'm beginning to loath DVD marketing types.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:23 a.m. CST

    20 years from now....

    by lost.rules

    The Final, No, Really, the Final Super Delux Ultra Platinum Gold Silver Bronze Edition Director's, Producer's, Writer's, Actor's, Grip Boy's Cut of Blade Runner comes out. Sweet!

  • July 29, 2007, 10:29 a.m. CST

    Scott Pulled A Kubrick w/ BLADE RUNNER

    by LaserPants

    Making a film so much better than its source material as to make the source material almost irrelevent. And I say this as a man who has read (and LOVED) almost all of PDKs novels.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:36 a.m. CST

    Decker a replicant? is a later change

    by livingwater

    The unicorn does not mean he's a replicant! Ridley is creating sensationalism after the fact. It is a symbol of freedom, and an ideal "mythological being" it also means Gaff had already been there and left Rachael alone. It is an intriguing concept, and you could say that is why Pris couldn't kill him but, essentially it is Ridley stirring the pot, IMO. FROM IMDB TRIVIA SECTION:: The dialogue in all releases of the movie alludes to another replicant who dies before Deckard's final battles with Pris and Batty. The conflicting dialogue occurs in the first conversation between Deckard and Bryant. Bryant initially tells Deckard there are four "skin jobs" on the loose, but minutes later says six escaped, and one was killed by the "electronic gate", which should leave five. The explanation is that the script originally contained an additional replicant named "Mary", but time and budgetary constraints resulted in her being written out. M. Emmet Walsh who plays Bryant, reports that new dialogue was recorded to change the number of replicants in this scene, but Scott inexplicably only used half of the new dialogue, resulting in the inconsistency. Harrison Ford takes issue with Ridley Scott's revelation that Deckard is a replicant. "We had agreed that he definitely was not a replicant," Ford said. ALSO :: The first draft, dated July 24, 1980, was written by Hampton Fancher alone. It refers to replicants as "androids" and makes it clear that Deckard is human

  • July 29, 2007, 10:39 a.m. CST

    "Decker is a replicant" is probably a later change.

    by livingwater

    The unicorn does not mean he's a replicant. Ridley is creating sensationalism after the fact. It is a symbol of freedom, and an ideal "mythological being" it also means Gaff had already been there and left Rachael alone. The point here is Gaff could read Deckard's mind, but that doesn't mean he is a replicant. It is an intriguing concept, and you could say that is why Pris couldn't kill him but, essentially it is Ridley stirring the pot, IMO. FROM IMDB TRIVIA SECTION:: "The dialogue in all releases of the movie alludes to another replicant who dies before Deckard's final battles with Pris and Batty. The conflicting dialogue occurs in the first conversation between Deckard and Bryant. Bryant initially tells Deckard there are four "skin jobs" on the loose, but minutes later says six escaped, and one was killed by the "electronic gate", which should leave five. The explanation is that the script originally contained an additional replicant named "Mary", but time and budgetary constraints resulted in her being written out. M. Emmet Walsh who plays Bryant, reports that new dialogue was recorded to change the number of replicants in this scene, but Scott inexplicably only used half of the new dialogue, resulting in the inconsistency." "Harrison Ford takes issue with Ridley Scott's revelation that Deckard is a replicant. "We had agreed that he definitely was not a replicant," Ford said." ALSO :: "The first draft, dated July 24, 1980, was written by Hampton Fancher alone. It refers to replicants as "androids" and makes it clear that Deckard is human." So does that make it clear. Ridley probably made the change after the movie. BTW it's EASILY one of my favourite films. Superb. A Masterpiece.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:49 a.m. CST

    I will buy the briefcase

    by krushjudgement

    I have to wait until December. DAMMIT!

  • July 29, 2007, 10:54 a.m. CST

    QT: "There's a human soul in the briefcase."

    by scratcher

    How would that improve Pulp Fiction? <P> I'm not saying that Deckard definitely isn't a replicant, or that anyone's wrong in saying that: it's a movie. It's open to interpretation. Apparently the film works for different people both ways. As Photoman and Memories-Of-Murder and Colonel_Blimp have written, for some of us it makes a much better film with Deckard as a human. His character is empty because he stands in for the human viewer, and we identify with his realizations about the replicants and the questions about what makes someone human. We also identify with his having the hots for Sean Young.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:55 a.m. CST

    scratcher is RIGHT!!!

    by Slingshot

    Who loved ET running about like a M&M advert?? or greedo shooting first?? Leave it alone and make some new cool films Ridley if you can

  • July 29, 2007, 10:57 a.m. CST

    Holy Shit

    by krushjudgement

    I juat watched that Iron Man footage. That movie is going to kick some serious ass!

  • July 29, 2007, 11:01 a.m. CST


    by scratcher

    I apologize to those of you who love it, but it appealed less to me, possibly because I was already too old for it. You may hate the way that talkbackers always have to pit one film against another, but it's hard to forget that year when two landmark visual films, Blade Runner and Tron (both with Syd Mead designs btw), got scant public attention while E.T. became a national obsession. <P> If it had been the other way around we'd have seen much cooler films get greenlit.

  • July 29, 2007, 11:17 a.m. CST

    Harrison Ford Hasn't Smiled On Screen Since 1988

    by Mr Squirrel

    Seriously, he was cool as Han & Indy but he turned that goodwill into a mediocre career of dull films featuring charmless, grumpy performances that are all the same. And what's with always thinking he knows better than the director? I like the narration in Blade Runner, and it's not his decision whether Deckard is a replicant or not. What's Ford ever directed? Also he always plays up that bullshit 'I was just a carpenter who got lucky' schtick when he was as desperate for fame as every other actor/waiter/rentboy in LA.

  • July 29, 2007, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Deckard's Humanity in the PKD Novel

    by uglyMood

    I believe much of the ambiguity on the part of the moviemakers over whether or not Deckard is a human stems from a bizarre sequence in "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep" where Deckard stumbles across an entire alternate SAPD he's never seen before. (The novel takes place in San Francisco.) The cop that arrested him accuses him of being an android, and he questions his own humanity as a result. Deckard quickly figures out that what he's seen is a parallel police department staffed entirely by androids and kills the android cop. I know that sounds confusing, but frankly this is one part of the book that suffers from Philip K. Dick's amphetamine-fueled writing technique, so it's more than a little difficult to figure out exactly what's going on. The book, like the movie, is a flawed masterpiece. For what it's worth, in the novel it is explicitly stated that Deckard is a human being, which is why he gets the crap beat out of him so frequently. Scott's "ambiguity" is not in the novel at all, except for the brief incident I described.

  • July 29, 2007, 11:55 a.m. CST


    by eric haislar

  • July 29, 2007, 12:05 p.m. CST

    and another thing:

    by newc0253

    If Deckard is a replicant, it not only shits on the whole Deckard=Everyman vs Batty=Superhuman thing, it also shits on the 'Sean Young is a prototype replicant with memories' deal. After all, what's Tyrell so proud of, if even the shitty old Police Department already have their own replicant on staff who think's he's human.<p> Seriously, Ridley Scott may be a great filmmaker, but he's not very bright. In fact, he might not even be a great filmmaker, because if you've got to put out a directors cut and then go round telling people how to interpret it, then you haven't done a good job.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:19 p.m. CST

    Total Recall

    by 9banned0.5furious

    doesn`t need any other version than the one theatrical version... AND is ambiguos to infinity, great, upps the book and whatnot. Awesome film/fairytale/nightmare/vision. Verhoeven also doesn`t feel the need to change it after the fact. No to revisionism! Go Paul! <p>Ridley is making Robin Hood bad guy now. I don`t care what he says, replicant yes/no. Or does in general... for a long time now.<p>I antilove the unicorn shot(awesome in itself) since i don`t need thinking of Tom Cruise and whatever during Blade Runner. Its also an exsample of a cheat supreme and anything but art, to go and use a shot from a movie you made later in some quasy Directors cut(91) of "your" masterpiece. I love the original, with naration, "mistakes" and all. Its beyond fascinating and great. Even if PKD died very unhappy with it soon after seeing the released film. And I love the book, which is different/"better" in some aspects. <p>I really want to see the Workprint that they "hid" in the expansive package. Shame.<p>In the end, its the matter of having shot material of such quality, that whatever edit you do, its gonna stand above 95% of anything else made. So, yes I will say it, given the material, a lot of people could make other "great" edits/versions of that film. A lot.<p>But, its great to have more/better DVD of BR, whatever version we feel close to.<p>On a side note, maybe there should be a Blade Runner TB somewhere where only TBers under influence of legal/illegal substances could contribute.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:25 p.m. CST

    Deckard as replicant

    by Dr. Chim Richalds

    I don't see how people can argue that the unicorn scene *does not* imply that Deckard is a replicant. At some point in the movie, the inventor mentions that he programmed the replicants with the memories and experiences of his granddaughters. Well, what sorts of mythological beasts do small girls often dream of -- you guessed it, UNICORNS! Now, whether this makes thematic sense is another kettle of fish entirely. I own an old copy of the movie without the voiceover and with the unicorn scene included, so I always assumed Deckard was a replicant. You mileage may vary.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:26 p.m. CST

    I could imagine talkbacks for this film back then...

    by Johnno

    I bet 90% of you would be bashing it for how terrible it was! All visual style and no substance, and how the metaphysical babbling in this film was simply pretentious nonsense and that it will be forgotten in a couple years time.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Lest We Forget...

    by Powers Boothe

    that Harrison Ford was in a cut scene from E.T. He played a classroom teacher.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner DC was the first director's cut ever

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    wasn't it? Can't think of any DCs before 1992. Since then every longer version of every crappy movie is called DC. Laughable. The BR DC truly is a DC and a great one. Don't think that the "final" version will be so much better. And don't understand why they need to "improve" some fx shots. That's like Luca$ pissing on his original SW trilogy with the silly SE versions.<p>I said it on the other BR thread a few weeks back, I'll say it again: Deckard IS a replicant (for me). He dreams of the unicorn and Gaff later makes an origami unicorn which shows that Gaff knows which dreams are implanted into Deckard. In no way does this harm the atmosphere or logic or likability or whatnot of BR.<p>Vangelis' score is out of this world (or to say it in BR words: off-world). Calling it a masterpiece almost is an insult.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:39 p.m. CST

    There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of clues

    by zinc_chameleon

    That Deckard is a replicant. In the second scene, his boss asks him to "come out of retirement" and take on a job "one last time". Retirement for a replicant is death; therefore, they keep a Deckard ready at all times, in some sort of suspended animation, to deal with runaway replicants. Then, notice his body language, the short intense way he move and speaks, *exactly* like the replicants his is hunting. Compare his kissing scene to that between Rutger Hauer and Darryl Hannah. Exactly the same kind of moves. If you're still not convinced, then notice that he's connects to his life through a series of photos, just like Rachel does. The unicorn is for both Rachel and Deckard.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:43 p.m. CST

    Sean Young

    by The Only Woj

    she is so goddamn hot.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:49 p.m. CST

    I never got the Unicorn dream

    by DannyOcean01

    Why would that make him a replicant? Am I missing something blindingly obvious? Surely we as humans, have the imaginative powers to dream of anything....If at our present stage, we can dream of fighting dragons or riding on unicorns because of our immersion in stories of fantasy, does that make us replicants?

  • July 29, 2007, 12:50 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    That may be one of the furthest stretches I've ever seen someone push on the Deckard-is-a-Replicant theory. "A" for effort though!

  • July 29, 2007, 12:53 p.m. CST


    by scratcher

    1) He retired from being a blade runner due to the nature of the job. My dad's retired, does that mean my dad's a replicant in suspended animation? If so, cool.<P> 2) Maybe he moves and talks like everyone else in the film because of the director's influence, like in a Mamet film. We don't get a chance to see Bryant kiss anyone, but he probably kisses the same too.<P> 3) Most humans connect to their lives through a series of photos, does that make them replicants? Is this a plot by Kodak?<P> 4) The unicorn image could be one of Rachael's implanted memories. Both Deckard and Gaff had access to the files on her memories. Maybe she watched Legend as a kid? To me the silver unicorn is a metaphor for the unique mechanical creature she is. The fact that the director uses the same metaphor several times doesn't need to be explained by Deckard's being an android. It's just filmmaking.

  • July 29, 2007, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Hah, Deckard's body language

    by DannyOcean01

    Is just Ford's way of telling Scott he's not happy....

  • July 29, 2007, 1:17 p.m. CST


    by scratcher

    Deckard's eating noodles when Bryant and Gaff come to talk him out of retirement. They don't go thaw him out from a freezer.

  • July 29, 2007, 1:19 p.m. CST

    my tix are booked for LA

    by aboriginal

    Hoping that they run it in Westwood's Fox Theater. I saw the "Director's Cut" there back in '92 and still have the ticket stubs and the re-release poster I bought around the corner to prove it. After Raider's this is my alltime favorite definititve SciFi picture. Man, I cannot wait.

  • July 29, 2007, 1:37 p.m. CST

    i just now finished watching the

    by lucid dreamstate

    dvd. the version that i have is the one without narration. i have never watched the narrated version, so i don't really know how they compare. i think the score used in the film is good, but it is a bit distracting to me. i think the music is too prominent. it just doesn't fit. i like the idea that blade runner is filmed in a noir style, and i would prefer not to hear euro-trash techno every five minutes. i feel the same way about some of john carpenter's films.

  • July 29, 2007, 1:38 p.m. CST

    I'd pay to see it on the big screen

    by ATARI

    seeing as how I missed out the first time

  • July 29, 2007, 1:40 p.m. CST

    it would be nice if scott would not

    by lucid dreamstate

    have explained the replicant situation. i think the audience should be the ones interpreting that. oh well, i love the film with it's flaws and all. one of the greatest sci-fi movies in my opinion.

  • July 29, 2007, 1:46 p.m. CST

    Actually, there were "director's cuts" long before BR..

    by wookie1972

    The most notable were Abel Gance's Napoelon and George Cukor's A Star Is Born. Both were substantially reworked. BTW, BR's look was taken whole hog from Heavy Metal (the magazine, not the movie). Not that it wasn't an amazing-looking movie, but let's give credit where credit is due.

  • July 29, 2007, 1:51 p.m. CST


    by BigDude

    One of my favorite characters in a movie ever, I had no idea there was more footage of Gaff lying around, and with dialoge at that. How cool. He's like Boba Fett, only before Boba Fett.

  • July 29, 2007, 1:55 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    i agree on the heavy metal look. i think heavy metal influence is one of the cool things about br. i agree totally.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:13 p.m. CST

    BEFORE Boba Fett????

    by wackybantha


  • July 29, 2007, 2:16 p.m. CST

    before boba fett

    by lucid dreamstate

    ha. that is a funny one.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:16 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    Actually, it's specifically Jean Girard, aka Moebius, who was also one of the designers on Tron. Don't get me wrong - to translate Heavy Metal into cinematic terms is astounding, but even Scott himself said that he took the movie's entire visual sense from the magazine.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:18 p.m. CST

    Prefer the Struzan artwork, shame it's not for...

    by KillaKane

    the 4 disc set. December can't come soon enough.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:25 p.m. CST

    Heavy Metal = Metal Hurlant

    by scratcher

    Moebius is an amazing genius and his work in Metal Hurlant was hugely influential on BR, but you can't just say that it was taken whole hog. It's an unfair oversimplification. Ridley did a great job of updating film noir design and combining it with the French vision of a dirty messed up future. He and Mead came up with some amazing designs that you can't find in MH or HM.<P> BTW, I've always loved how he re-used the vehicle control screen in Alien.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:27 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    the look of the film is definitely pulled straight out of a heavy metal mag. i personally like the idea that deckard could possibly be a replicant (in the film version). i think it adds something cool to the story. two replicants in love at the end. i like how it is left up to the audience to decide.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:30 p.m. CST

    i will have to check out metal hurlant.

    by lucid dreamstate

    i have never heard of it. as far as the heavy metal influence, i see it, but others may not. it's not an exact replica( now there's a word for you) of heavy metal , but the way the cruisers look and the huge jumbotron images look hm to me.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:38 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    i don't have any exact quote, but in Future Noir Sammon writes that Scott specifically said that he based the look on Metal Hurlant/Heavy Metal. No, it wasn't the only influence, and I love the movie, but it doesn't take from the movie to say that Scott borrowed very heavily (no pun intended) from the French.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:39 p.m. CST

    Metal Hurlant

    by scratcher

    was the original, Heavy Metal was mostly material taken from MH, with some Roger Corben and Vaughn Bode thrown in (maybe they were also in the French?), and imported to America.<P> Blade Runner probably looks just as much like Enki Bilal's work as Moebius. Bilal's is more grungy.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:49 p.m. CST

    metal hurlant

    by wookie1972

    Metal Hurlant was the French precursor of Heavy Metal. The original issues are probably very difficult to find, but some of it has been reprinted in graphic novel format. As for Deckard being a replicant, I thought it was too much of a "twist ending." The screenwriter who came up with the line ("Roy Batty and I were brothers") that inspired Scott to decide that Deckard was a replicant only meant the line to be metaphorical - the replicants are mortal, just as Deckard is mortal.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:49 p.m. CST


    by scratcher

    I agree that it was influenced, but everyone is influenced, including Moebius. There's a difference being influenced and taking "whole hog" -- to me that implies ripping off. <P>Mead's technology design on both BR and Tron can't be found in HM. Much of the look for the film is also influenced by 40's design (hair styles, clothing).<P> The fact that Ridley hired Giger for the design of Alien and then tried to hire Moebius for BR means that he could spot great visualists. Too bad he gave up on the genre.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Bilal's stuff is pretty good

    by wookie1972

    ...what I've seen of it, anyway. I agree that Syd Mead was a visionary as well. It was really a mishmash of all sorts of influences - Moebius, punk, the Asian influence in LA. I've always wondered how much William Gibson took from the movie.

  • July 29, 2007, 2:57 p.m. CST

    Ridley Scott had nothing to do with the voiceover

    by Colonel_Blimp

    I would recommend everyone who can get a hand on it the excellent 20 page article on BR in Empire #218 (don't know if you get it in the US?). Here, Ford says: "...the script was prepared without a voiceover narration. And that's the film we shot.(...) (nixing the VO) was the key condition to my involvement."..."I was obliged to do these voiceovers for people that did not represent the director's interests."(ie Tandem Productions, which took the film away from Ridley after it went over budget)..."Then it finally came to the final day of the final version of the voiceover. I showed up, and there was a man (Roland Kibbeé) in a zip-up Hobby Suit (...) puffing on a pipe and beating on an old portable typewriter. (...) that was the man with whom I recorded the final narration. (laughs) By this point I had already done the narration six times." On another note, Batty and Deckard sharing a lot of similar behaviour (zinc_chameleon's comment)is obviously meant to underline that humans and replicants are similiar and equal, not that deckard is synthetic. sure, you can perfectly well rationalize deckard being a replicant by what you see in the film, but it all comes down to what you want to take out with you from the film. do you want a cheap (instantly satisfying but ultimately shallow) gimmick twist (deckard being a replicant), or something more poignant and thought provoking (deckard being human, or at least the question being unanswered). I suppose my choice is obvious. Scratcher: Kudos to your dad being a replicant. BTW: how do you guys make paragraphs?

  • July 29, 2007, 2:58 p.m. CST

    is william gibson good?

    by lucid dreamstate

    i need to catch up on my sci-fi reading. i usually just watch the films . didn't he write neuromancer?

  • July 29, 2007, 3:01 p.m. CST

    maybe "whole hog" is a little strong

    by wookie1972

    I just find that, for better or for worse, people only credit Scott with his "great vision" when BR is, more than some other movies, a collaborative work.

  • July 29, 2007, 3:10 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    Neuromancer was one of the first real Cyberpunk novels, and a major influence on The Matrix. (Or, if you will, The Matrix blatantly ripped it off). it's quite good, although I haven't read his later stuff.

  • July 29, 2007, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Bilal and paragraphs

    by scratcher

    Bilal's series with the Egyptian gods visiting future Paris is simply amazing. It matches the quality of Moebius' work, which I wouldn't say lightly. The series is collected in several volumes (haven't read the third myself). He also directed a film based on the series, Immortal. Haven't seen it, but now I think I will.<P> Blimp, you make paragraphs the same way you would in HTML (the P tag).

  • July 29, 2007, 3:15 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    the fact that br is a collaborative work is probably the reason some of it's flaws are so prevalent. i am starting to understand why scott wants to release a definitive cut of the film. if the studio took the film over at some point, then some things about the theatrical release are not going to jibe with ridleys vision. i love the film. narration or not. i think people are going to always look back and consider br one of the great sci-fi films.

  • July 29, 2007, 3:21 p.m. CST

    Paul WS Anderson's Blade Runner Versus Johnny Neumonic!

    by Spandau Belly

    coming soon!

  • July 29, 2007, 3:22 p.m. CST

    johnny moronic.

    by lucid dreamstate

    that's what i call it.

  • July 29, 2007, 3:43 p.m. CST

    it wasn't even that good when it was released

    by Rupee88

    It is such an OVERRATED movie. It is a good sci-fi movie and those are rare, but it isn't that great.

  • July 29, 2007, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Narration is seldom worthwhile.

    by Spandau Belly

    The only film I think it actually made better was Trainspotting. It was alright in Braveheart and if you want to knitpick about that little extro at the end of T2 when Linda Hamilton talks about a robot learning the value of human life then fine, I liked that too.<br><br>But for the most part I consider it a sign of weak filmmaking. If you've got actors, dialogue, action, music, and imagery but you still need somebody to point blank tell your audience what's going on then you've made a bad film.

  • July 29, 2007, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Re: There are dozens, perhaps hundreds of clues

    by livingwater

    It would not be Deckard's choice to "come out of retirement" if he was a replicant, anymore than a Nexus-6 would chose when TO die.

  • July 29, 2007, 3:52 p.m. CST

    Royal Tenenbaums is another exception

    by scratcher

    I love Baldwin's narration.

  • July 29, 2007, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Iron Man Footage from Comic Con

    by magnetoelectric

  • July 29, 2007, 4:01 p.m. CST

    How can a replicant "come out of retirement?"

    by wookie1972

    "Retirement" isn't suspended animation, it's death. <br> if Deckard is a replicant made to think he's human, then he must be of a newer generation than the Nexus-6 replicants. Which doesn't make any sense if you think about it, because why would Tyrell set loose a superior replicant?

  • July 29, 2007, 4:24 p.m. CST

    narration's not neccessarily weak filmmaking

    by Colonel_Blimp

    kubrick used it all the time, to terrific effect, especially in Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon and Full Metal Jacket. It also works brilliantly in Fight Club and Apocalypse Now, to name some. But in all those movies it's used to create an atmosphere and a thematic coherence, and as a tool for good storytelling, not as a a substitute for it.

  • July 29, 2007, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Deckard is a replicat, period.

    by aboriginal

    The voice over was done by execs that reacted after preview audiences couldn't follow the story w/o direction - hence the Marlow-esque/film noir go-to. The "Director's Cut" release was one of the first attempts to capitalize on movie re-releases to promote at the time hi-res laser disc sales. Preview audience reaction to the hints that Deckard was a replicant didn't work either and the unicorn was dropped - hence the origami that Gaff was making was lost in the set-up to the unicorn he made at the end. And, that whole end was footage from The Shining that they pulled in to use to give the audience a sense of hope that there could be a happy ending w/o running anymore. The feeling was at the time - as it is now - that sad endings in movies do not promote 2nd passes from movie goers. It asked too much of the audience in Scott's early cut - Director's Cut. This is not conjecture at all on my part as many of the people involved have covered this over the years and I've been in part of this indirectly. Although PKD's work has influenced much, this picture has set up far too much of what has followed. You fanboys that slam this flick better be thanking the fact that this thing was handled by Scott and imagined by Sid Mead or sci would be very different today. It is one of the most influential movies in sci fi period. **steps off soap box**.

  • July 29, 2007, 5:16 p.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    He did design work for Alien too.

  • July 29, 2007, 5:18 p.m. CST

    Me too, KillaKane

    by Birdys Piano Teacher

    Drew Struzan's artwork is iconic. So many great films that he did the posters for in the 80s--Back to the Future, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, Star Wars re-release, et al. I wish movie posters were still considered artwork.

  • July 29, 2007, 5:23 p.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I don't see anything in your post to support the subject line. <p>As for what you did write, the hows and whys are a very distant second to what ends up being the film. Just cause the path it took may not have been direct, or because it wasn't divine inspiration from the "artiste", Ridley Scott, doesn't mean it isn't legitimate or worthwhile. In the original version of BR, Deckard is not a replicant. All these other versions are just muddying the waters.

  • July 29, 2007, 6:03 p.m. CST

    RE: Sean Young --

    by smajors

    for The Only Woj Uh, YES....And now she is even hotter (in my mind) after seeing her with the dick chick....No lie

  • July 29, 2007, 6:11 p.m. CST


    by wookie1972

    Scott tried some test footage of a Unicorn but it didn't look very good. The unicorn in the 1992 cut was done using some footage from Legend. the narration was done late in the day, but definitely by the time of test screenings. And it is not definitive that Deckard is a replicant, period.

  • July 29, 2007, 7 p.m. CST


    by ludmir88


  • July 29, 2007, 7:21 p.m. CST


    by Mr Squirrel

    because story-wise it explains the origami unicorn. Without the dream unicorn, the origami just means he's been there.

  • July 29, 2007, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Anybody Remember The BLADE RUNNER Commodore 64 Game?

    by LaserPants

    It was terrible, but I loved it; featuring some totally kick ass, lo-fi, 8bit renditions of the theme music. The whole thing was basically running down a street chasing/shooting at a runaway replicants. Only, like most pirated games (who didn't have 1,000s of them), the gameplay was really odd; it was hard to tell when you won or lost, and just seemed to keep on going. It was weird, but I LOVED the music in it.

  • July 29, 2007, 7:31 p.m. CST

    a dream is not a memory

    by scratcher

    What does a dream of a unicorn prove? That he's a little girl at heart? The implication is that Graff has access to implanted memories, not dreams.

  • July 29, 2007, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Graff knows what he's dreaming.

    by Mr Squirrel

    But only if you have the dream sequence - but that's not in the original, which I prefer.

  • July 29, 2007, 7:39 p.m. CST

    A dream is not a memory

    by Mr Squirrel

    but the implication is that he must know Deckards dreams. It can't be a coincidence in the unicorn dream version

  • July 29, 2007, 7:41 p.m. CST

    but I'd rather discuss my earlier post about Ford

    by Mr Squirrel

    He really threw away the opportunity to leave a legacy of great films that played to his cocky Han persona that we all loved.

  • July 29, 2007, 7:56 p.m. CST

    How is it implied that Graff can read Deckard's dreams?

    by scratcher

    This is the problem with that whole Deckard=replicant idea, it requires too much non-film justification and explanation. There's nothing in the film that suggests that anyone has access to replicants' dreams. Nothing. It isn't implied, unless someone's using it as a way to prop up the Deckard=replicant story. There's also nothing in the film that would explain how Deckard doesn't know he's a replicant, unless he's a superior model, in which case (as has been said before) there's no reason they'd be using him as a glorified dog-catcher.

  • July 29, 2007, 7:58 p.m. CST

    I Agree With The "Deckard Is A Replicant" Theory

    by LaserPants

    Its pretty obvious given the unicorn-origami thing. Still, I like that its ambiguous; you can pretty much read it any way you want too. Still, I agree -- Deckard is a Replicant. Not just to justify the unicorn/origami thing, the fake photos in his apartment thing, or how artificial and oddly pale/synthetic he looks when he attacks Rachel in his apartment. I also think why it explains his sterotype noir-gumshoe persona -- he was designed that way; an in-joke amongst the designers trying to put together a Replicant Hunter. That was always my theory, anyways.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:01 p.m. CST

    It is a shame about Ford though

    by scratcher

    Han Solo, Deckard, Indy, then...a succession of forgettable roles. When Blade Runner came out he was the greatest actor in the world, and Sean Young was the hottest (after BR and Stripes). Now he's boring and she's a nut case.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Deckard's dreams

    by Dr. Chim Richalds

    Don't people generally remember their dreams? I haven't seen the movie in a while, but the replicant inventor clearly states at one point that certain replicant memories were taken from the memories of his granddaughters. Presumably, one of them dreamt of a unicorn and remembered that dream afterwards. Gaff knew that the replicants had memories from the granddaughters, including the unicorn dream-memory. This really isn't rocket science.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Deckard Dreams of Unicorn, Graff Makes Origami Unicorn

    by LaserPants

    The implication being that Graff knows what dream/memories/images were programmed into Deckard's Replicant brain. Pretty obvious hint, yo

  • July 29, 2007, 8:04 p.m. CST

    NEW RULE: If you don't like what a filmmaker does

    by Bill Maher

    with his movies, DON'T WATCH 'EM! It's his work of art -not yours! The reason there's so much thievery in the world is because dickheads have no respect for property rights. If Ridley Scott or George Lucas want to re-edit their movies, I think they should. If Frank Frazetta wants to re-do old paintings, he should. Wagner tinkered with his Ring series until the day he died. Don't like it? Fuck you!

  • July 29, 2007, 8:05 p.m. CST

    NEW RULE: Stop Stealing Maher's Schtick

    by LaserPants

    Still, I agree with what you just said.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:14 p.m. CST

    They never said that dreams were implanted, yo

    by scratcher

    They implanted memories, not future dreams. It's not in the film. Deckard wasn't having a memory, he was having a dream. As I wrote before, it's never "implied" that Graff has access to Deckard's dreams. That's your own creation.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:25 p.m. CST

    I don't like Blade Runner enough to get excited

    by BringingSexyBack

    about these sets but would definitely put the new cut in my Netflix queue.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:30 p.m. CST


    by Dr. Chim Richalds

    Uh, I would consider the fact that both of them had unicorns on the brain to be a pretty strong implication. The possibility that both of them would arbitrarily think of unicorns independently of the other is a pretty big stretch. How you can definitively state that Deckard was having an original dream is beyond me. It is possible for a person to dream of something multiple times, and to remember those dreams. If Graff knew that one of the granddaughters dreamt of unicorns, and that Deckard received implanted memories from that granddaughter, then Deckard's thinking-dreaming of unicorns seems entirely logical to me.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:42 p.m. CST

    Deckard received implanted memories from granddaughter?

    by scratcher

    "and that Deckard received implanted memories from that granddaughter" WHAT? Where did this come from? Did Ridley now say that Deckard received implanted memories from one of Tyrell's granddaughters? Is there a sequel to this film that I've missed? A prequel? Is that what Ridley's setting up? Deckard is a hardened film-noir throwback cop with the memories of an 8 year old girl?<P><P> I'm not stating anything definitively, it's the replicant theory supporters who keep saying that "Deckard is a replicat, period." You can have your own reading of the film(s). But don't argue that the replicant theory is "obvious" just because Ridley says that's what he thinks. If you've ever worked on a film you know that the director isn't the only author of a film. Ford wasn't playing a replicant, and none of the writers, including Dick, thought that he was. It's open to interpretation, and to talkback discussions.

  • July 29, 2007, 8:59 p.m. CST

    Pre-Order & Narration

    by MediaNerd

    Well my suitcase is pre-ordered. Its been awhile since i've seen the narration version, but I recall enjoying it just fine. For me it worked because I view this film more as a noir than sci-fi(though it is obviously both). For most noir's the V.O. is an element of style and the story, not a way to cover up poor direction. <br><br> Nontheless I simply enjoy this movie regardless of version and can't wait to check out this workprint(what's so different on that one?)

  • July 29, 2007, 9:21 p.m. CST

    i am not positive that he

    by lucid dreamstate

    was a replicant. i think it's not absolutely clear either way. i think it's open for discussion. i prefer to think that he IS a replicant. it just seems to work better in my mind that way. if someone says that he is not a replicant in the movie, then i can't argue that too well because i can see it from that perspective as well. i think the music in the film is all wrong. i wish ridley scott would eliminate the new wave classical or whatever the fuck it's called. the music is my main complaint.

  • July 29, 2007, 9:33 p.m. CST

    that briefcase dvd set

    by lucid dreamstate

    looks to be a nice collection. my directors cut dvd is pretty damn bare bones. it has no special features( none worth mentioning). i think i am going to have to get that briefcase.

  • July 29, 2007, 9:38 p.m. CST

    i watched blade runner and

    by lucid dreamstate

    escape from new york today. i have been reviving the eighties today. blade runner is a very good film. i am impressed with it. i think it is a unique movie. daryl hannah was a hot replicant.

  • July 29, 2007, 9:41 p.m. CST

    Rachael had memories from Tyrell's niece...

    by wookie1972

    not his granddaughter. There is no indication where (if indeed he is a replicant) Deckard's memories come from.

  • July 29, 2007, 9:44 p.m. CST

    Ford made Witness and The Fugitive after ROTJ...

    by wookie1972

    Both of which are damn good movies. He's still a great actor. He's also probably the quintessential Jack Ryan.

  • July 29, 2007, 9:47 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    i agree with you. there seems to be no absolute indication about the origin of his memories (assuming he is a replicant after all). i think that is good writing and direction . i like the fact that BR has a lot blurred lines. if you focus on the story and not just the visuals, the film will make you think about the nature of reality. then again, it could be these santa claus colored mushrooms i am ingesting.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:01 p.m. CST


    by scratcher

    I don't understand. If you're ingesting santa claus colored mushrooms, then how can you have a problem with Vangelis' score? Seems perfectly compatible.<P>BTW, at the time of release the score was AMAZING. Many of us waited a decade (or longer?) for the true soundtrack to be released. I guess now it might be dated, but it was cool at the time.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:04 p.m. CST

    I've never watched it on drugs, but you're right

    by wookie1972

    The inability to determine the true nature of reality is probably the most PKDish aspect of the movie. Actually, some of his other stories and novels explore this theme in more detail. I think Scott should have kept it ambiguous, or else just left Deckard human. There are too many thematic and dramatic problems resulting from Deckard being a replicant.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:05 p.m. CST

    is that a film cell included in the box set?

    by lucid dreamstate

    the picture of the briefcase set has a fim cell included (i think). i am glad they decided to give this film the ultimate dvd treatment.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:09 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    i think the music is actually pretty good. i am not knocking the score at all. i think it is misplaced in BR, that's all. it's just my opinion, and i am probably the only person who wishes the music would be eliminated. i wish it had a score like chinatown. i think the music annoyed me for some reason. today was the first time i watched the film in about 3 years, and i have some new opinions of it in light of some things i have read on aicn.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:12 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    i was perfectly sober watching it myself believe it or not. ha. i think the dramatic complications are what make me put this film on such a pedestal. it seems like a good idea for deckard to be a replicant. i agree with you, the replicant situation works better if it is unspoken. scott should never have explained it the way he has done. i still give him credit for directing this one.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:17 p.m. CST

    the reason that i liked children of men

    by lucid dreamstate

    so much was that it didn't try to add a bunch of dr. who type synthetic music everywhere in the film. children of men didn't have everyone wearing emmett brown bttf2 clothing either. i think blade runner could have worked better without the technoish score. it just overpowered the film. dario argento does the same shit. the score in his films annoy the hell out of me. phenomenon was good, but pay attention to the music next time you watch it. it doesn't fit. it is redundant as hell.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:19 p.m. CST

    GAFF is not in the original book

    by livingwater

    ...for a start....second there is no evidence that would suggest REPLICANTS DREAM. They are machines. They are approaching humanity, but still machines. They have implanted memories. Deckard dreaming PROVES he is not a replicant. Also how would GAFF have insight into replicant dream patterns when even Tyrell is ignorant of Voight-Kamff ? That theory doesn't hold water. The Unicorn is OBVIOUSLY a PARALLEL symbol, the origami is script device. Just like the matchstick man and the chicken. GAFF is tuning into Deckard's behaviour.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:23 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    i can see your point of view on this issue. i am not sure either way though. i am only basing my opinion on the movie. i have yet to read the book. are you basing your opinion on information from both the film and the book? from what i can gather, the film is a different interpretation of the story than the book was. am i right about that? i am just curious.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:25 p.m. CST

    did my last post make sense?

    by lucid dreamstate

    it seemed like a big run-on sentence when i proof read it just now. is it nonsense or what?

  • July 29, 2007, 10:28 p.m. CST

    this has to be one of the best threads yet for me

    by lucid dreamstate

    i think BR is very interesting. i am glad others are contributing so much information on this one. i like this topic. this film deserves to be discussed.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:31 p.m. CST

    more human than human

    by lucid dreamstate

    that is our motto. i love that line. rob zombie got that from blade runner right? has he ever discussed BR in an interview or anything? i am curious to know what rob zombie thinks of BR.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:32 p.m. CST

    How do you get different endings in Blade Runner PC?

    by Doc_Strange

    Played the game a few times but the outcome is always the same. I escape with the pink haired girl out of the city. Is that the definitive ending? Or is there one even better?

  • July 29, 2007, 10:32 p.m. CST

    my posts must be making no sense whatsoever

    by lucid dreamstate

    because i am the only one posting. that usually means it's time for me to shut up. ha.just nod if you can hear there anyone at all?

  • July 29, 2007, 10:33 p.m. CST

    Unicorn Dream + Unicorn Origami

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    ... might equal replicant. That is a revised version though. The original film - the DEFINITIVE film, in my eyes - had no such dream. <p>I think the movie is lesser with Deckard as replicant no matter how you slice it. However, the film COULD have been constructed in such a way that it would have been more of a payoff. But it wasn't. The idea was tacked on, not just after the fact, but a decade later. <p>To me it's far worse than Lucas's tampering because the nature of the change to BR is not reflected in the effort that went into it. All Scott did was splice in a cheesy shot from Legend and suddenly the whole movie is turned on its ear. Now THAT is disrespecting your own film.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:33 p.m. CST

    how old is the BR pc game?

    by lucid dreamstate

    sounds interesting to me, i have never played it.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:37 p.m. CST


    by scratcher

    I agree with the meaning of what you just wrote, except for "even Tyrell is ignorant of Voight-Kampff." I think that Tyrell feigns ignorance when Deckard brings it up, but is playing with him so that he tests Rachael. Don't you get that impression from their conversation after she leaves them alone to discuss the results? After all, his company may well have invented the test.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:38 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    did the movie studio take over the film before it was completed and released? i heard that they did. is the narration part of the definitive version that you talk about? i have the non narrated dvd. if ridley scott had ideas of deckard being a replicant originally and the film was hijacked by the studio, then i can understand why scott would want to finish his original vision of the film. i am probably way off base with this one, but i like the replicant idea for deckard's character. i still think it is not clear either way.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:40 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    i agree with you about some characters using deception against deckard. i think we have to assume that he is being lied to by several people.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:44 p.m. CST

    replicant revison < midi-chlorians

    by scratcher

    I'd say the cheapening of the Force to the lame midi-chlorian biological explanation is a MUCH worse crime against one's own work than what Ridley's been trying to do. Eliminate spirituality just to prevent future generations from developing it into a cult? Come on. I'm surprised that Joseph Campbell didn't rise from the grave and strangle Lucas for that one.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:47 p.m. CST

    And oh, by the way

    by zinc_chameleon

    What do you think Gaff meant by: "You've done a man's job!" if not to hint to Deckard that he's a replicant? Whatever, gents, you'll watch the film differently now. My work is done here.

  • July 29, 2007, 10:49 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    i think what ridley is doing is an improvement to the film. lucas put jar jar into his films. i can't forgive him for that stunt. also, lucas has had control over the star wars films and scott's hands were tied because of studio restraints on BR. he is simply putting some finishing touches on his vision in my opinion. ridley scott is a relevant director as far as sci fi is concerned. alien secured his sci fi royalty status to me. blade runner is just icing on the cake.

  • July 29, 2007, 11:09 p.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Yeah they took it out of his hands. This is the thing though, a lot of people think the director's intent is the be-all end-all, but I don't. Plus there are other people involved - like Ford -who say it was their understanding that Deckard was not a replicant. And like I say, it's such a halfass way of doing it. It's not as if Scott putting that in made all these other pieces suddenly fall into place - in fact it's the contrary effect.

  • July 29, 2007, 11:11 p.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    i don't think that eliminated spirituality. the midichlorians were described as something that interacts between humans and the force ... it's not like they ARE the force.

  • July 29, 2007, 11:44 p.m. CST

    Deckard IS a replicant

    by Abhimanyu

    1) The unicorn origami means nothing without the dream sequence. Gaff's origamis are always reflection of what Deckard is thinking - 1st Origami - You're chicken, you don't want this case - 2nd Origami - man with an erection - you're attracted to her - 3rd origami - I know your dreams. 2) Every replicant has the memories of a human inserted into them. Deckard tells Rachel "They're not your memories - they're Tyrell's niece's". Deckard's memories are actually Gaff's 3) Gaff is the Blade Runner, but Deckard is created specifically to hunt these others down. Gaff can't be the one to do it since he has been injured (maybe in an encounter just before the movie starts) - he walks with a cane 4) Deckard is weaker because he needs to believe the androids as "others" in order to do his job. No matter what else, a Blade Runner MUST be human. Therefore the "weakness" programmed in 5) Gaff lets Deckard and Rachel go because it's him - he is looking at a different version of himself - seeing and feeling in two ways. Even if it is his job, he cannot bring himself to destroy this temporary self and life. All this is extremely different from the book, but makes for a superb and complex movie. What a joy to see an entire movie from a doppelganger’s point of view, with no heavy exposition, just small pieces that fit together. Hope this one doesn't mess it up.

  • July 30, 2007, 12:14 a.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    That's all very interesting but it's 99% conjecture. <p>I don't think anyone's arguing that Deckard isn't a replicant in the director's cut. It's pretty clear that he is supposed to be (although as I've said it's asserted pretty halfass and in a way that is contrary to much of the rest of the movie, requiring explanations like the one you've some up with in order to fill in the gaps). <p>It's also clear that in the original film, he's human. The point is, which is a better idea, and which is executed better? Deckard as human is executed well; Deckard as replicant is not. Deckard as human has resonance and depth; Deckard as replicant has gimmickry and shallowness.

  • July 30, 2007, 12:17 a.m. CST

    Deckard is NOT human and NOt a replicant!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by wackybantha

    HE'S A MARTIAN!!!!!!!!!!!

  • July 30, 2007, 12:18 a.m. CST

    Abhimanyu vs. Occam's razor

    by scratcher

    Damn, I've got to give you credit for coming up with that theory! That's some interesting speculation. Can't see exactly how one could get that from the film, but it sounds like you could write a good screenplay!<P> 1) The unicorn origami DOES mean something, and it DID even before Ridley added the dream sequence. It's a symbol for Rachael's perfection - remember it's made from foil (which has no relation to the dream!), so it's a perfect and unique "metal" creature, like her. He's allowing Deckard to leave with Rachael. Remember Gaff's quote about it being a pity that she wouldn't live, but neither will any of us.<P> All of your other points could hold up in the complex scenario you've set up, but does it make as poigniant of a film if Deckard isn't human? That's the point that the "replican'ts" are making: the film has more emotional weight if Deckard is human, and even if that isn't what Ridley intended, his choice (which ran contrary to all of those who worked on writing the film) may not be the best one.

  • July 30, 2007, 2:03 a.m. CST

    Great Films=Open to Interpretations

    by charon

    I gotta say Abhimanyu's take on it is very similar to the one I had in mind. But then again, I haven't watched the narrated version in a long time. This new box set is pretty kick-ass, it will be great to revisit such a defining piece of cinema in such detail.<br><br> Oh yeah, the repli-can't/repli-can comment? Fucking great.

  • July 30, 2007, 2:30 a.m. CST

    I think Scott has done his job and

    by Doc_Strange

    Wants the people who watch the movie to debate whether or not Deckard is or isn't a replicant. But again, the movies both theatrical and Director's Cut are two separate entities and as such are open to interpretation. This movie is what we call an 'art film'. Yes.

  • July 30, 2007, 3:32 a.m. CST

    let's not turn this TB into a discussion about SW, but:

    by Colonel_Blimp

    In the terrific "Making of Star Wars"-book published earlier this year Lucas mentions the Jedi gets the force from midi-chlorians - and this interview is from 1977! Make of that what you will. At least the Midis aren't lazy revisionism. (If memory serves this interview was in the appendix on the deluxe hardback edition, not sure if it is included in the paperback) ABHIMANYU: terrific interpretation, and perfectly valid. I'm pretty sure it's not what Scott intented, but it's still a thought provoking interpretation that overcomes many of the thematic problems I've had with the "deckard is a replicant"-version. My stance now? I'd say about 50-50. Long live amiguity. Haven't seen the movie in years. December can't come soon enough.

  • July 30, 2007, 3:45 a.m. CST

    I can't believe no one has figured out the obvious:

    by markjamesmurphy

    Deckard is not a replicant. BATTY, HOWEVER, IS A HUMAN. A real crazy human wacked out on PCP so he can punch through walls and reach into boiling water and shit. He manipulated the others into mutiny just 'cuz he's so fucking crazy and he really wanted to bang Pris and come back to Earth.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:15 a.m. CST

    Abhimanyu and Theatrical Cut

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    I agree completely with Abhimanyu's points and I don't see how you can call them conjectured 'cause for me those things are pretty obvious.<p>As for the Theatrical Cut: I hate that version. The narration is stupid and redundant - it only tells what we already know. It was just a silly studio decision. Just like the out-of-place happy ending with the shots from Shining material. There's a good reason why only the director's cut was available on DVD (and VHS since 1992).

  • July 30, 2007, 5:28 a.m. CST

    Deckard is not a replicant

    by Trazadone

    I HATE THIS STUPID "DECKARD IS A REPLICANT" BULLSHIT! Allow me to elaborate: First, I don't care what Ridley Scott says because he doesn't know, any more than Quentin Tarantino knows what's in that glowing briefcase. And Tarantino has a better chance of knowing that (in other words, I would listen to his answer) because he, um, wrote the movie script, whereas Ridley Scott is merely the (brilliant, visionary) director of Blade Runner. It's like trying to figure out the Queen Alien's life cycle, and asking Ridley Scott. He DOESN'T KNOW, because James Cameron (unlike Ridley Scott) actually wrote the script to his movie and can begin to answer the question. Here's where I should bring in Susan Sontag and her idea of "the Intentional Fallacy" but I won't bother. Except I just did, so here goes: the artist is not an authority on his own work. He or she is merely an authority on the creation of the work. But never mind all that. This is the stupidest idea in the history of sci-fi speculations, for the following reasons: 1) Replicants are illegal on Earth, so Deckard wouldn't be allowed there. 2) Deckard works as a Blade Runner, which means he spends his working days surrounded by an entire police force dedicated to revealing, chasing and retiring Replicants. And they never noticed him? What are they, completely incompetent? (Remember that all they'd have to do is detect him and shoot him; no trial necessary.) 3) Replicants only live four years, and yet Bryant and Gaf clearly have memories of Deckard that are older than that. (There's some wiggle room on this one, but not much. "I need you, Dec. I need the old Blade Runner; I need your magic.") 4) Let me return to point one. Having four "skin jobs" in Los Angeles -- just HAVING THEM THERE -- is such a police emergency that Deckard is called out of retirement to solve it. But nobody cares about Deckard walking around? The only Replicant legitimately walking around on Earth is Rachel, an experimental model (in that she's got the new Nexus VI memory implants and DOESN'T KNOW IT). I'm sure Tyrell gets some kind of special dispensation allowing him to keep Rachel on Earth. Never mind the bullshit about how she doesn't have the four-year-lifespan, either: that's part of the studio-added narration and isn't really part of the story. 5) Replicants have superhuman strength. (Even Pris; she practically kills him with her bare hands, and she's just Daryll Hannah while he's Harrison Ford a year after developing his "Indy" physique.) 6) His eyes don't glow. Nobody's eyes fucking glow in this movie; it's called cinematography and Ridley Scott and Jordan Cronenweth are very good at it. 7) I re-iterate the extreme stupidness of hiring a non-self-aware Replicant to kill Replicants. How is this anywhere close to a good plan? Are you telling me there wouldn't be background checks, Voigt-Kampf tests, data going back MORE THAN FOUR YEARS? 8) Let's ignore everything I just said and pretend he is a Replicant after all. (It's some kind of "deep plotting" in which surface details of the photography carry more weight than the entire screenplay.) Is this supposed to "mean" something? It doesn't do anything to the story except screw it up -- unless you're stuck at the same tenth-grade level of literacy in which you think the end of "The Player" is profound because all you know how to do is detect when something is refering to itself; e.g. first-level irony. But since first-level irony is just about the weakest form of meaning you can find in art (although it's the easiest to detect and "analyize") this reduces Blade Runner to some kind of symbolic parable, when it's really far more than that. If David Bowman turned out to be a computer himself, would 2001 suddenly "mean" more? More like the opposite. 9) I re-iterate that Ridley Scott doesn't know the answer. Come to think of it, he says some awfully dumb things on the Alien commentary track, too.

  • July 30, 2007, 6:47 a.m. CST

    many things

    by wookie1972

    <HTML>First of all, Tyrell feigns ignorance of Voight-Kampf? Huh? He seems to have heard of it. He asks a few rhetorical questions about it, but that's merely to prove his point.<BR> " 2) Every replicant has the memories of a human inserted into them. Deckard tells Rachel "They're not your memories - they're Tyrell's niece's". Deckard's memories are actually Gaff's"<BR> Not true at all. For one thing, it's not "Every replicant" - Rachael is the first to have the memory implants. You could argue that Tyrell was lying about that, but there is nothing in the movie to suggest that he is.<BR> "4) Deckard is weaker because he needs to believe the androids as "others" in order to do his job. No matter what else, a Blade Runner MUST be human. Therefore the "weakness" programmed in"<BR> You're shaping your argument to fit the evidence, rather than using the evidence to shape your argument. Sorry, but that doesn't make any sense.<BR> " 5) Gaff lets Deckard and Rachel go because it's him - he is looking at a different version of himself - seeing and feeling in two ways."<BR> Then why are Gaff and Deckard NOTHING ALIKE?</html>

  • July 30, 2007, 6:53 a.m. CST

    Trazadone... well said

    by wookie1972

    I pretty much agree with every you wrote. Ridley Scott is a visual mastermind, but he is NOT a writer. i think he latched onto "Deckard is a replicant" for exactly the reasons you say - it sounds cool and clever. Thematically, however, it makes no sense. That's also why I find The Usual Suspects so overrated - the "twist" ending merely makes the movie meaningless, rather than adding to it.

  • July 30, 2007, 7:25 a.m. CST

    Good points, wookie1972!

    by Trazadone

    I've always thought the little "hints" of DAR in Blade Runner were meant to evoke the idea that the creatures he's tracking and the "good guys," aka humans like our hero, aren't that different from each other. Blade Runner has the wonderfully murky morality of a film noir, and there are deft strokes that circle the theme of human identity in an increasingly complex future. Among the ideas thrown out there are whether Deckard has taken the VK test and whether he's ever retired a human by mistake, both questions asked by Rachel. We get no answers, and we're not meant to, because this is a good movie that knows what it's doing. At no point are these artistic flourishes meant to invade the plot and provide the "real" answers. I was going to say that this question is the venue of 10th grade fanboys just learning their chops, but then I remembered that at no point in my life, 10th grade or otherwise, have I given DAR any level of regard. Nor will I.

  • July 30, 2007, 7:28 a.m. CST

    "Twist" endings

    by Trazadone

    The whole trick to twist endings is not that they reverse an assumption you've made but that they do it cleverly so that the entire fabric of the story is revealed to make an alternate sense to the sense you think it's made. The Sixth Sense remains my favorite example (since I really think it's the most perfect "twist ending I've ever seen, including all the Twilight Zone stuff I've watched): at the moment of the twist, the movie immediately takes you through everything you've seen to SHOW you how much sense it makes and how you've been fooled. Wild Things does this too: under the closing credits the movie takes you back through and shows you exactly how their double-twist worked, in chronological order. It's pretty intense, but it all makes sense. With Blade Runner, it's just idiocy. How could he even... Never mind; I've said it above. I associate this idea with a type of person I can't stand: the all-knowing fanboy types who solemnly tell you "what it really is" in this smug voice and then back it up by insisting that their information source is somebody "better connected" or more "on the inside" than you are. "The briefcase [in Pulp Fiction contains the Holy Grail...really, because I know a guy who has the other draft of the script." I'm not making this up: someone really "pulled rank" on me over the Pulp Fiction briefcase. My follow-up question -- what two low-level Burbank mobsters were doing with the Holy Grail, and what this has to do with anything else in the movie -- went unanswered. I was just solemnly told that this was "the truth."

  • July 30, 2007, 7:33 a.m. CST


    by Spandau Belly

    Hey, is that Kill Bill Ultimate DVD finally coming out? Region 1? When? I never bought the single disc editions waiting for it to be all cut together as one complete film.

  • July 30, 2007, 7:34 a.m. CST

    and ludmir88 also...

    by Spandau Belly

    Does Michael Bay do commentaries on his DVDs? I would love to hear his madness so that I can better hate his movies.

  • July 30, 2007, 7:38 a.m. CST

    Trazadone and wookie1972

    by Neo Zeed

    I agree with what you said Trazadone. Ridley is obsessed with making Deckard a Replicant, even if it goes against the entire film. I have no fucking idea why. If he wants to make a movie about an android hunting androids, he should make ANOTHER movie. On other other hand wookie1972, the ending of the Usual Suspects made sense with the premise of the film. The premise of the movie was that, the person with the strongest will (to do what his opponent is incapable of) has the most power. Gabriel Byrne thought he had it seemed he was smarter than his partners and the cops. Chazz Palmanteri thought he had it because he had a badge and Spacey looked weak. In the end Spacey had it because everyone underestimated him, and he was willing to go to EXTREME lengths (pretending he's was a cripple, blackmail, misdirection, etc.) to achieve his goals. This is all laid out in the flashback of Keyser killing his family (and his opponents' family) to survive. He was in Spacey's own words, "Willing to do what the other guy couldn't." Thus the premise is intact with the "twist" ending.

  • July 30, 2007, 7:51 a.m. CST

    IMHO, Deckard is not a replicant...

    by wookie1972

    But he *is* mortal, and he has no chance of asking his "creator" for more life. That's what Fancher and Peoples were trying for in their scripts, and IMHO Scott took this far too literally. <BR> Your Pulp Fiction story rings true - not that the script actually contained that, but that these guys claimed it did. It does seem to be a very fanboy thing, and frankly it's lazy as film/literary criticism. One of the great things about movies as a medium is that things can be ambiguous in ways that print media can't - heaven forbid these fanboys try to watch something truly ambiguous, like Wild Strawberries (IB RIP).

  • July 30, 2007, 7:58 a.m. CST

    Tyrell & Voight-Kampff

    by scratcher

    I base his "feigning ignorance" of Voight-Kampff on his saying, "I want to see it work," and then pretending to want to see it used on a human. He's undoubtedly already seen it work before.

  • July 30, 2007, 8:05 a.m. CST


    by scratcher

    Good commentary. I'm not so sure about your need to insult all those who hold the replicant view (a very "fanboy" thing to do?), but I share your views on the film. Deckard's being a replicant doesn't add anything to what's already a great film, and in my mind makes it weaker.

  • July 30, 2007, 8:10 a.m. CST


    by Trazadone

    Yeah, re-reading what I wrote I realize that I come across a bit "intense". It wasn't my intention to insult people who hold an opposing view because, after all, these are just my opinions, but I do get frustrated with people who say, Deckard is a replicant" without being able to back up their idea. I don't mind debating this stuff but it has to be a "debate", not just, "He's a replicant because I think he is..."

  • July 30, 2007, 8:19 a.m. CST

    I agree

    by scratcher

    Most of the pro-replicant arguments have added up to "Because Ridley says so, and it's his film, so fuck you and stop whining." That's why it was so refreshing to read Abhimanyu's well-thought out explanation, regardless of how little evidence there is in the film to back it up. At least it's creative and makes you think. <P> I haven't read Sontag's theory, is she simply summarizing Barthes, or does she add something significant?

  • July 30, 2007, 8:49 a.m. CST

    In the commentary for Legend..

    by Neo Zeed

    Ridley told the screenwriter (before he wrote the script) that he wanted a character called Darkness and a unicorn in the movie. Those were his only demands. He gave no reason. I guess he just thought it was cool. The Deckard/replicant thing is the same thing.....except it happened while they were shooting! Sometimes directors get these particular ideas, and won't commit to directing until they get their way. Somewhere along the way, Ridley didn't want to make a movie about a human hunting androids, so he made Deckard a replicant after the fact. Perhaps, he thought that the Replicants were more interesting than by making Deckard a replicant, the character is now "cool." Remember, when you where a kid? You and your friends were writing comics in the backyard, and your artist buddy fucks up the story. Because, he wants his character to have "powers" (because he thinks it would be cooler.) If doesn't get his way, he wont draw it. You and your other buddies walk off in disgust, leaving him with a bunch of pages. He tries to redraw parts of the story to give his character superpowers because he thinks it's "cooler." Even though he's happy, the story is now worse off. Although it's not about superpowers, Ridley's like that lone kid in charge. Just on a big budget scale.

  • July 30, 2007, 9:14 a.m. CST

    The eyes

    by access virus

    <p>Someone said earlier his eyes don't glow -- don't agree.</P> <p>Saw this on the big screen a couple of years back and it was pretty obvious only the replicant's eyes had that cat's eye/glowing effect, that's what clued me in to Deckard being a replicant more than anything.</p>

  • July 30, 2007, 9:25 a.m. CST

    The Usual Suspects

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    See at least that movie was built for the twist. Even if it's not done well (I think it is). BR on the other hand is being revised after the fact. So even if Scott wanted it in there at the time (doubtful), a decade later it's just not gonna sit right. However, as I say, it's even worse when you shoehorn it in there like he did.

  • July 30, 2007, 11:40 a.m. CST


    by henrydalton

    Where's the director's cut of Legend? He does have a habit of making them shorter, after all...

  • July 30, 2007, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Director's cut of Legend came out a while ago

    by Gozu

    And it was not shorter. In fact, it was much longer (or felt longer anyway) with all the Tangerine Dream music replaced with Jerry Goldsmith. Normally, I love Jerry Goldsmith, but it was pretty generic stuff and pales in comparison to the Tangerine Dream score.

  • July 30, 2007, 12:28 p.m. CST

    The chick in Crying Game turns out to be a replicant

    by Spandau Belly

    Sorry to spoil it for you, Bruce Willis in 6th Sense is also a replicant.<br><br>However Danny Trejo in Once Upon A Time In Mexico is more of a replican than a replican't.

  • July 30, 2007, 12:33 p.m. CST

    I have tried and tried to like this film

    by DirkD13"

    But it's just never found a place in my heart. I know it's a classic, but I just don't like it. It's always kind of bugged me that I don't like it as I love me a bit of Ridley Scott and it's certainly one of the most beautiful films ever made. Then again I don't like the Star Wars series at all (except for Empire). And before any of you think I must just dislike Sci-Fi, Alien and Aliens is my all-time favourite double bill.

  • July 30, 2007, 1:50 p.m. CST

    And Harry is actually...

    by Kid Z

    ... Several replicants.

  • July 30, 2007, 1:54 p.m. CST

    walk now

    by kirttawesomio

    walk now

  • July 30, 2007, 1:54 p.m. CST

    walk now

    by kirttawesomio

    walk now

  • July 30, 2007, 1:55 p.m. CST

    walk now

    by kirttawesomio

    walk now

  • July 30, 2007, 1:55 p.m. CST

    don't walk

    by kirttawesomio

    don't walk

  • July 30, 2007, 1:55 p.m. CST

    don't walk

    by kirttawesomio

    don't walk

  • July 30, 2007, 1:57 p.m. CST

    I might actually pre-order the ultimate uber edition

    by kirttawesomio

    and I never pre-order.

  • July 30, 2007, 2:54 p.m. CST

    The role of the artist

    by Tergenev

    I loved the original when it came out in the theaters. It felt like Philip Marlowe had come back to life. The voice-over was critical to this tone. And I loved the whole thing. I've had a problem, a real problem, with Ridley Scott's assertion that Deckard was a replicant ever since he made it. It turns a fascinating study of humans confronting their own creations into a one-trick magic act; a creature of much less richness and import. But how to resolve this with the artist's vision? It's honestly bugged me for years. Astonishing that a movie with such a mediocre initial reception, and which still gets only grudging respect from critics, remains in my, and many other, minds so long after it was (first) created. I've recently come to a resolution, at least in my own mind. The artist, in this case, is wrong about his own creation. Its true that the artist (most typically the director in this particular medium) has the final say about what his creation IS, but ultimately it is the viewer that has the final say about what the art MEANS. Its clear that Scott *wants* to make his protagonist a replicant. Its clear to me that he's wrong. For if he is right, then this film is just what the critics contend and not what I've thought all these years, a weak, pointless study of uninteresting characters in a blase neo-futuristic setting, rather than a thoughtful, well-presented rumination on basic humanity surrounded by technology and the results of his (or her) own creations. Artists are often wrong about their own works. How often have we heard an artist or filmmaker, when asked to pick his favorite or least favorite work, clearly get it wrong, or at least wildly divergent from popular perception? It isn't surprising. They sit so closely to the work that they have a tough time seeing it with an unjaded eye. Like the rock carvers who worked on Mt. Rushmore. Unlike many filmmakers and other artists, however, Gutzon Borglum was well aware of this problem when he set workers to the face of the rock. I think Ridley Scott lost sight of the true scope of this particular artistic work early on and has continued on a faulty path ever since.

  • July 30, 2007, 3:39 p.m. CST

    Its Amazing To Think That BR Bombed In '82

    by LaserPants

    Only to come back as one of the most popular and beloved sci-fi movies of all time. Odd too how the efx, done way before the advent of photorealistic CGI, still looks beautiful and outdoes most CG-tastic films we have today.

  • July 30, 2007, 3:44 p.m. CST

    'You've done a man's job'

    by Mr Squirrel

    What's the point of that original dialogue if not to suggest Deckard is not a man?

  • July 30, 2007, 3:46 p.m. CST

    Do geeks dream of silver 5-disc briefcases?

    by AllieJamison

    Holy fucking indulgent completist absoluterrific unicorn. These will be the geekiest christmas-days of my life.<br> <br> I don't actually remember ever seeing Deckard carrying such a briefcase in the film, though........

  • July 30, 2007, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Also, I identify MORE with Deckard if he's a Replicant

    by Mr Squirrel

    Maybe that's because I'm adopted.

  • July 30, 2007, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Legend: Directors Cut

    by Neo Zeed

    I enjoyed the directors cut of Legend. I think the additions helped smooth out the once choppy narrative, and the Goldsmith score helped make the movie less cheesy.

  • July 30, 2007, 4:17 p.m. CST

    Red eyes = Replicant, no?

    by WX1

    <p>Reflection properties. Color frequencies in light.</P> <p>Stuff forgotten from high school physics, reminded again of in the 100 requirement at University.</P> <p>Replicants' eyes reflected at a certain angle offers red pupils.</P> <p>Deckard has it, too.</P> <p>If edited out in final cut, we'll know for sure.</p> <p>If NOT cut out we'll . . . know for even surer.</p> <p>No?</p>

  • July 30, 2007, 4:22 p.m. CST

    If Blade Runner was a hit in 82

    by Neo Zeed

    There would have been a dozen big budget, cyberpunk movies made. It's all about the benjamins. It's funny how Hollywood pays a lot of lip service to Blade Runner nowadays. However, in reality they still hate the term "bleak-sci-fi future." Because Blade Runner originally bombed. Max Headroom got cancelled. Judge Dredd bombed. Johnny Mneumonic bombed. Never mind that those movies had script/acting issues(Except for Max Headroom. That show was awesome.) They just blame the common thread between them all. The overtly cyberpunk visuals. They think it's too depressing for the audience.

  • July 30, 2007, 4:24 p.m. CST

    "You've done a man's job"

    by scratcher

    It's a saying, invented by humans for humans. Been around for years, and I don't think people have ever suspected that those who use it are androids. Gaff tells him that he's done a man's (as opposed to an immature inexperienced boy) job in tracking down all the rogue androids, but it's a pity that Rachael will eventually die due to her expiration date. It isn't proof either way.

  • July 30, 2007, 4:25 p.m. CST

    Not a replicant

    by nicegoogly

    This was a really bad attempt to sell the director's cut. The PKD story is a noirish/pulpy story. The voice over is almost necessary. How great is the line equating "skin job" with the word "nigger"? Brilliant. There is no question Deckard is human. He learns the replicant's capacity for humanity and his lack of humanity by the final battle with Batty. That in the end, they are capable of the same thoughts and feelings about life and death, thus, replicants are not unlike humans and humans not unlike replicants. I could have sworn, when I read Electric Sheep and saw this in 1982, that this was the whole point of the film. If we are to learn that Deckard is a replicant on top of it, blows that significance of the "tears in rain" scene to shit. When did Scott become M. Night Shyamalan (however you spell that name)? The movie certainly calls Deckard's humanity into question, but as a human. How can someone who is human be such a cold-blooded killer. To be capable of the same emotionless killing the replicants are accused of. That what makes his realization at the end with Batty so fulfilling. Deckard is not a replicant, but Roy Batty, by virtue of that final Vangelis-filled scene between the two, is not a replicant, but human, too.

  • July 30, 2007, 4:48 p.m. CST

    Briefcase in "Pulp Fiction" (no separate thread?)

    by WX1

    . . . is an amalgam (not just for dental work anymore!) of everything ever searched for by criminals in film. 'Swhy it's so beautiful to every criminal type who sees it in "Pulp Fiction" and would similarly be in awe to any other criminal character in film.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:02 p.m. CST

    You're right: it's about race, not replicants

    by scratcher

    They're living in a society that views one group of living creatures as being less alive than they are. Eventually, as machines become more and more human, humans will have to deal with their prejudices against "machines," even if they end up being indistinguishable from us. That's the point, and it's a metaphor for racism of any kind. <P> So at the end Deckard (personifying the audience) realizes that the machines (Roy) should be given the same rights and shown the same dignity as humans. This point isn't strengthened if it turns out that Deckard is: a machine/chinese/native american/black. The audience is already relating to Roy and Rachael, and their confusion that they are viewed as less than human.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:04 p.m. CST

    "you've done a man's job"

    by lucid dreamstate

    could be a possible subtle inference. i am not ruling it out as an android reference. my interpretation of the film is that the story has a lot of blurry lines. i think certain elements of BR are not absolutely clear. it doesn't seem like an open and shut case to me.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:07 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    what has quinten tarantino said about the briefcase in pulp? has he ever explained it in an interview? i think the briefcase was one of the best things about pulp. thanks for reminding me about that.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Ridley didn't write the screenplay

    by scratcher

    So if none of the writers who worked on the screenplay thought that Deckard was a replicant, then someone wrote the line "you've done a man's job" to be said by a human to a human.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:16 p.m. CST

    Ambiguity is what it's all about

    by Antz

    If you have read any of the Philip K Dick books, most of them have that "What is real?" feel to them. So the subtlety of the unicorn is spot on, males you question things, but you are not sure.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:18 p.m. CST


    by nicegoogly

    You were able to decipher my rambling. I just read my own post and thought "did I even see this movie?" All jokes aside. The inferences and subtle inferences being made are getting a bit out there. You have all fell for Scott's desire to pull in a bigger discussion and make the film into a greater phenomenon. Maybe his is looking for his own BladerunnerCon to be immortalized along with Star Wars and Star Trek. Keep the debate alive and you have a new version every few years. What about Ishtar? If you want to go back in time and fix something, how about addressing that peice of shit? The only real way to fix that is to leave it on the cutting room floor. Maybe if we wait 28 years from now, Transformers will be fixed? Stop trying to fix movies we already love. Catwoman, X-Men 3, the Star Wars Prequels. Fix that shit, please. If one of you motherfuckers touch Batman Begins, look the fuck out. Look at it this way. When I go to work and fuck up, I won't come in a few weeks later and say: Here, I have now done my job correctly, gimme more money.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:22 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    good point about the script. it is possible that ridley scott got the idea to put the "he might be a replicant" hints into the movies visuals and along the way he was able to use the existing script to help propel this notion?

  • July 30, 2007, 5:24 p.m. CST

    is it

    by lucid dreamstate

    i meant to start my last post as a question. i should proof read this shit sooner than i actually do. oh well, i cry your pardon.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:29 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    i agree about ishtar. maybe let someone fix waterworld too. honestly, i could give a fuck what ridley scott wants me to discuss about the film. i contribute to this thread because i think this movie is a great film to be placed alongside at least the worst star wars film( whatever that might be*cough-jar jar-cough*). even though BR has flaws, i am still a huge fan of the film.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:35 p.m. CST

    "Ambiguity" as mentioned by Antz . . .

    by WX1

    <P>. . . and maybe a few others, yeah, that's probably the better if not THE best explanation o' what's going on in BR (off-top': notice how "in not too far future" material and flicks with the initials B.R. [i.e., "Battle Royale"] tend sustain harken (hearken?) aplenty ad academium? Heh, who's the replicants, now, yuk yuks?).</p> <p>Ambiguity tends to be so used is my quandry, though. But, handled to where at least we can keep discussing, heck, friggin' theses not only limited to English maj's, taken on by science types and such.</p> <P>THAT and the whole "is Deckard a Replicant" became a giddy sci-fi query for I. Damn. If only Han had shot first, yuk, yuks.</P> </P> True: Dick's novels are underrated, not read enough.</P>

  • July 30, 2007, 5:38 p.m. CST


    by lucid dreamstate

    what is a good novel to start with? i haven't read pkd. do you have a favorite? thanks.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:40 p.m. CST

    from what i can tell

    by lucid dreamstate

    it seems to me that fans of pkd books are not digging the movie as much. maybe i do need to read the book as well. my opinion of the film probably sounds lame to those people , but i am only basing my opinions on the film . the book is an entirely different issue.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:46 p.m. CST

    What if *Gaff* is a replicant?

    by Mosquito March

    I mean, look at those crazy eyes! James Hong could have totally made those fuckers in his lab after eating some bad squid. And, Gaff, whose alien demeanor is equal to or greater than Batty's, knows about the unicorn. I don't know why they would position a replicant in his place any more than they would Deckard, but why else would Gaff know about the unicorn shit? If he were that on-top of the replicant case, why would they even need Deckard? In any event, while my opinion of Scott has tarnished steadily since GI JANE, I think he should be commended for releasing a set like this. Instead of saying "fuck you" to the theatrical cut fans with non-anamorphic presentation like Lucas did years after saying it would never see the light of day again, Scott is giving everybody a choice. And, doing it up better than Spielberg's E.T. set. As a huge BLADE RUNNER fan, this set couldn't possibly get any bette (unless it came with a blowjob from Sean Young). It's the greatest thing offered since Criterion's BRAZIL package almost a decade ago. I only wish I could see this new cut on the big screen like I did when I happened to be in NYC when the BRAZIL re-release hit back in 1998.

  • July 30, 2007, 5:53 p.m. CST

    Lucid Dreamstate, yeah, tha's a dang good

    by WX1

    <p>question for I because, I must admit only having read "Do Android Dream . . ." back in the early 90s and then some short story of his, "She Wanted The World," something like that, so, yeah, I was including myself in that "underrated" comment. Both were pretty good as I read 'em. Must get thee to a bookstore quick . . . let's see if my fav' American author series has PKD . . . oh, yes, here we go: "Philip K. Dick: Four Novels of the 1960s" (whoa! Includes "Do Androids Dream . . ." as well) by, yes, Philip K. Dick, ed. Jonathan Lethem, ISBN: 1598530097 ISBN-13: 9781598530094 from The Library of America -- one of the few publishers (they're actually part of Penguin, I believe) whose releases you wanna keep in the same protective mylar you use for comics. At least I do :) . </p> <p>By the way, regarding the what's in the "Pulp Fiction" briefcase, I dunno, maybe you folks'd feel the same way, but, that time in cinema there seemed to be be such more other, well, lemme just call it "Chicken$#!&" (yes, with a capital "c") devices being used in cinema -- and, I really can't recall them at this juncture -- that, at first, I out-and-out did. Not. Care. what the heck was in that briefcase at first, even though it WAS the pioneering "Pulp Fiction." Quite actually, I was laying on the couch one day and just casually figured it -- an amalgam of every criminals' search. See what a little R&R can do sometimes?</P>

  • July 30, 2007, 6:02 p.m. CST

    Of course Deckard is a replicant!

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    If the whole reflective eyes thing is a clue, go to 1 hour 6 minutes and thirty five seconds into the director's cut DVD. There it is, Deckard with a reflective eyes!

  • July 30, 2007, 6:07 p.m. CST

    RE: Reflective eyes

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    If it were that easy to spot Replicants, why would they bother with the V.K. test?

  • July 30, 2007, 6:08 p.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Good post. To take it a little further, perhaps down a divergent path: IS the director the artist? After all the auteur theory is just that: a theory. <p>Certainly under the best of circumstances, a director, especially one who doesn't initialize the concept if not write the script, the director has far less control than his or her analogue in pretty much any other medium. <p>So as easy as it is for, say, Bob Dylan to misunderstand his own song, it's far far easier, considering all the elements that go into a film (especially a production as sprawling as BR), for a director to do the same.<p>It helps when the director is a peabrain, as it's become evident Ridley Scott is.

  • July 30, 2007, 6:14 p.m. CST

    Unicorns aren't real

    by Mr Squirrel

    Neither is Deckard.

  • July 30, 2007, 6:15 p.m. CST

    To Mr. Nice Gaius

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    Q.If it were that easy to spot Replicants, why would they bother with the V.K. test? A. The reflective eyes thing is a device for the audience, not the characters in the film.

  • July 30, 2007, 6:18 p.m. CST


    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    Ooohhh, you took the easy way out.<P>In my opinion, he's not a Replicant and he shouldn't be.

  • July 30, 2007, 6:29 p.m. CST

    Easy way out?

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    The replicants in the film have reflective eyes. That scene with Deckard (1 hour, 6 minutes, 35 seconds) having reflective eyes is definitely there. Would Ridley Scott put it in there by accident? Besides, the fact that he's a replicant adds as sense of irony there gives the film more emotional depth.

  • July 30, 2007, 6:32 p.m. CST

    Hey, you know who else is a replicant?

    by newc0253

    Your mom.

  • July 30, 2007, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Earth is filled with replicants

    by scratcher

    All the "real" humans evacuated the Earth and left it to die long ago, and the replicants left play out the final days over and over. Everyone thinks that they're "real" and all others are "fake," like Dominique Pinon's clones in City of Lost Children. <P> Some of the unlucky androids are hunted down in order prove to the rest of society that they are still human. Everyone's eyes glow, they all wear 40's-themed outfits, dream of unicorns, and every time they use words like "man" or "retirement" they wink. <P> (except Deckard)

  • July 30, 2007, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Rachel asks Deckard a leading question

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    She says, "Ya know that Voight-Kampff test of yours, ever take that test yourself?"

  • July 30, 2007, 6:47 p.m. CST

    Everyone Except Tyrell and Sebastian Are Replicants

    by LaserPants

    Thats how I always saw it. Again, totally subjective, not saying I have the answers here. But I always thought (while high) that Tyrell and Sebastian were basically these two wacko genetech scientists sitting in their big toybox -- LA 2019 -- living out this bizarro retro tech-noir electro fetish fantasy until their end of their days; the end of their days coming when their fantasy creations ultimately wind up killing them. The whole Frankenmyth thang, all cybered up and dare I say it, slightly goth and glam as well. But I was high when I thought that, so. Yeah. My too cents.

  • July 30, 2007, 6:55 p.m. CST

    Irony = Emotional depth?

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    This is news to me.<p>Let me also point out, that the unicorn shot is lame, and doesn't fit in with the tone of the rest of the movie. Dumb ditty dumb dumb.

  • July 30, 2007, 7:03 p.m. CST

    'I'd rather be a killer than a victim'

    by Mr Squirrel

    Like he suspects he should be a victim? A Replicant, that by law, should be killed. Ha, that's pushing it I know, but I think the original has several clues that are definitely there (and I thought this before the DC) - the red eyes, the 'Man's job' line and even Gaff's 'but then again who does?' line has layers of potential meaning. The Unicorn Dream in the DC underlines it for me, but I prefer the ambiguity of the original. I also love the theory that he is a detective model, programmed to act like a gumshoe. But I always think he somehow breaks the laws of physics when he looks at the photo, anyone else?

  • July 30, 2007, 7:05 p.m. CST

    Irony = Emotional depth?

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    Good lord, does everyone need things explained to them? Deckard figures out that he's not human and at the same time realizes that the replicants that he's been hunting and killing are just trying to survive, making them more human than he thought. Would you like "The Gift of the Magi" explained to you as well?

  • July 30, 2007, 7:11 p.m. CST

    Enough of this!

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    Let's all agree to disagree. Those that like the theatrical release can watch that version, and those of us who agree with the director of the film can watch the final cut version. If we continue to bicker like this don't the terrorists win?

  • July 30, 2007, 7:17 p.m. CST

    The Terrorists Have Already Won, Dan

    by LaserPants

    But you're right about how the bickering needs to end. Unless its funny, in which case I hope it never ever ends.

  • July 30, 2007, 7:18 p.m. CST

    More of this!

    by Mr Squirrel

    Nobodies bickering and it's one of the best TBs for ages. We haven't even begin to discuss why it is that Sean Young is so unbelievably hot in that movie for example.

  • July 30, 2007, 7:20 p.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    It hasn't been too bicker-y, I don't think. Has it?

  • July 30, 2007, 7:20 p.m. CST

    Come To Me Rachael, Chani, SEAN YOUNG!

    by LaserPants

    Shes teh hotness, geek hotness, now crayzay, bye bye, sniff choke!

  • July 30, 2007, 7:23 p.m. CST

    Mr Squirrel, I disagree

    by scratcher

    I brought up Sean Young's hotness early on, and how at that time (with her Aunt Jemima scene with Bill Murray in Stripes) she seemed destined for greatness. Then she went batshit over Catwoman.

  • July 30, 2007, 7:26 p.m. CST

    Voltron is a replicant

    by scratcher

    In the trailer you can clearly hear the girl say, "It's huge and a replicant!"

  • July 30, 2007, 7:28 p.m. CST

    Didn't Sean Young Bite A Bat's Head Off On Stage Too?

    by LaserPants

    Oh no, wait, I'm messing up my 80s celeb meltdowns.

  • July 30, 2007, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Did Somebody Say...

    by LaserPants

    VOLTRON?! Uh oh.

  • July 30, 2007, 8:10 p.m. CST

    You ever notice how much smoking's done in Blade Runner

    by successor

    It seems like every other person in Blade Runner is lighting up a Boyard, one of those yellow French cigarettes. I think it adds to the whole noir ambience. Rachel smokes, Taffy Lewis smokes, Pris smokes, many of the bar patrons smoke. If the film were made today, they probably wouldn't let anybody smoke.

  • July 30, 2007, 9:12 p.m. CST

    No Scratcher

    by nicegoogly

    She says "there are five Voltrons and not six. One got electrocuted on the Statue of Liberty." Come on, did you pay attention to the re-edit? Also, if I was not clear enough with my bitching, I love the original cut and this remains as one of the most enjoyable science fictions films I have ever seen. My opinion is first instincts are best instincts. My other concern is that HD-DVD will make what looks to great, even compared to today's special effects, look dated. IE: The Matrix in HD-DVD looks fuckin' awesome. Reloaded and Revolutions looks even shittier in the cleaner transfer as Disney Pixar animation looks more real than Neo and Agent Smith. Sometime high definition pulls back the curtain and the Wizard is a little cocksucker that looks like Joel Silver.

  • July 30, 2007, 9:43 p.m. CST

    Are you saying the HD won't look good?

    by scratcher

    I think the effects will stand up well, having looked at them blown up on the big screen about a dozen times. I guess Ridley was worried about looking at Cassidy's stunt double too closely, but strangely that shot never really bothered me. Maybe because I was still thinking about the blow drier scene that preceded it. And that goofy fake voice that Ford does! <P> I have a soft spot for the theatrical version, even with the VO, but I also like the director's cut. The problem is that while watching the director's cut I still hear Ford's voice in my head.

  • July 30, 2007, 9:45 p.m. CST

    I Took The Voight-Kampff Test Once

    by LaserPants

    And it showed that my midichlorians were off the charts, and so, Liam Neeson, that dude from Trainspotting, and that chick from that remake of Cassevettes' GLORIA had a really fun adventure! Unfortuantely, there was this irritating fishdogman with us who kept performing some kind of bizarre minstrel-show, so must of the adventure was irritating. Then we were attacked by this short fat dood in a flannel shirt whose neckfat was truly, truly, truly outrageous. Like JEM, but more awesomer. Anywho, turns out I'm not a Replicant. Whew!

  • July 30, 2007, 10:19 p.m. CST


    by nicegoogly

    I have the super deluxe dvd edition of Dune, and it is a great transfer. When I got an HD-DVD player, I got the HD Dune. Same special features, transfer is actually not as good as the DVD version. Plus, the deluxe DVD has two version of the movie while the HD-DVD only has the theatrical version. I, personally, cannot stomach the director's cut and have been pissed that they don't even air the theatrical release let alone sell is on DVD. I am sure it will look awesome, but with clarity comes...well...clarity and you might see some things that were better left in the shadows. PS, Harry should also Voight-Kampff Patricia, but I think he already has those results.

  • July 30, 2007, 10:22 p.m. CST

    Explaining the irony

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Yeah we GET the irony. The point is, it dosn't increase the emotional depth. Or whatever. <p>And please don't explain Gift of the Magi. Or Natural Born Killers either - it still sucks, anyway you look at it.

  • July 30, 2007, 10:59 p.m. CST

    Oh The Irony!

    by LaserPants

    I was expecting one outcome, and, instead, I got another! Many bittererly touching lifelessons followed this unexpected turn of events, and several epiphanies later I realized that it was a glorious thing to be a human being at the Ass-End of history. What a country! <br><br>Can't wait for the BLADE RUNNER SUITCASE edition, and am happy to be able to purchase this loving portrait of a world in neon collapse (w/ pain and beauty); a world I find strangely comforting despite all the talk of it being grim. At the very least, a world much more comforting than the one were living in now -- one much more like the world we see in CHILDREN OF MEN than BLADE RUNNER. (CoM being, in my estimation, a much bleaker and more terrifying movie. You know, when dystopian sci-fi starts looking like a documentary, and less like something in a distant idealized future, you know we're all fucked.)

  • July 31, 2007, 12:36 a.m. CST


    by thebearovingian

    Blade Runner sux. I'll give it one more chance even though I know it'll burn me again. Seriously, Blade Runner is a POS. Fuck this planet!

  • July 31, 2007, 2:21 a.m. CST

    The Escape Ending

    by Obi_Wan_Guacamoli

    I know there are those who may hate me for thinking this, but I actually liked the ending of the threatrically released version where Deckard drives Rachel away from the city and through the woods. It just really felt like they had found some sort of freedom, however temporary it may have been.

  • July 31, 2007, 3:21 a.m. CST

    QTs: Suitcase

    by MediaNerd

    Suitcase is a RepoMan reference, though i have no idea why it was brought up here

  • July 31, 2007, 3:22 a.m. CST

    Workprint Version

    by MediaNerd

    Anyone have any knowledge as to what is significant about the Pre=Theatre version?

  • July 31, 2007, 4:57 a.m. CST

    Why poster Trazadone doesn't seem to have a clue

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Most of your points are quite...well pointless. Allow me to elaborate :-) <p>You said that "Deckard works as a Blade Runner." --> We never saw Deckard working before this particular case, so we can't know for sure if he ever worked as a BR before. <p>You claimed that Replicants only live four years, and yet "Bryant and Gaff clearly have memories of Deckard that are older than that." --> Where did you get that from? We learn nothing of Gaff, except that he always knows where to find Deckard (for me another hint that Gaff is the real BR; he lets Deckard - who as a Replicant knows where to find the others - do the dirty work); there's also no indication that Bryant and Deckard know each other more than 4 years. <p>You also said that "His eyes don't glow. Nobody's eyes fucking glow in this movie" --> You're very wrong my friend: every Replicant has a brief scene with (intended) red glowing eyes; even the artificial owl has those glowing eyes. <p> You pointed out the "extreme stupidness of hiring a non-self-aware Replicant to kill Replicants." -->Remember DEMOLITION MAN? "Send a maniac to catch a maniac"

  • July 31, 2007, 5:37 a.m. CST


    by BlackIronPrison

    Thought I'd clarify and, ironically, simultaneously, muddy the waters. Deckard does not "dream" the unicorn. He's quite obviously awake before and after that shot. Also, no one seems to have yet mentioned Batty's line as he saves Deckard, "Kinship!" or that Gaff's line "You've done a man's job, sir!" was actually longer in early versions of the script, adding: "... But are you sure you are man? It's hard to be sure who's who around here." My stand on all this is in line with Antz above. It's all about the ambiguity. PKD's two major themes/obsessions were always, "What is reality?" and "What is human?". So in my mind it's absolutely appropriate to have all this uncertainty concerning this issue. PKD would've probably relished the fact that these questions/ambiguities have survived intact throughout all the versions of BR. One more thing: Roy knows Deckard's name, yet he was never told it. How?

  • July 31, 2007, 5:44 a.m. CST

    trazadone speaks the truth

    by Lost Prophet

    The intentional fallacy thing is well worth noting (as much as I hated it in university)- everyone is attempting to second guess what the creator intended. Not what we have. A fine example of this is Tolstoy's The Idiot- the final book does not in any way resemble the book he intended to write. is this acceptable, or doese it diminish the work itself?<p> To make this even more of a flawed premise: in this instance, Scott- arguably, is not even the creator, he is the interpretor. Therefore, we have the work of one artist, based on the book by another, interpreted by yet another. So I will judge only on the film itself and won't try to untangle the web of intentions, as it is poinltess.<p>On this basis, I don't think he is a replicant shining eyes be damned, and don't give a fuck what Scott intended. I also don't particularly think it matters if he is, as he is unaware of his status.

  • July 31, 2007, 6:55 a.m. CST

    Thunderbolt ross is a replicant!

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    The audience is supposed to feel something extra for Deckard after the revelation that he is a replicant. I suppose you also felt nothing for Burgess Meredith at the end of the Twilight Zone episode "Time Enough at Last" when he broke his glasses? You sir are the replicant!

  • July 31, 2007, 7 a.m. CST

    This implies Deckard worked as a Bladerunner before

    by livingwater

    "Bryant: I need ya, Deck. This is a bad one, the worst yet. I need the old blade runner, I need your magic."

  • July 31, 2007, 7:03 a.m. CST

    the humanity of a replicant

    by livingwater

    The whole crux of the movie is that androids can approach human qualities and have emotions: a very disconcerting concept. When you say "Deckard was a replicant" it takes away that contrast and challenge to what we see as human, rendering the movie meaningless. Like watching a washing machine.

  • July 31, 2007, 7:05 a.m. CST


    by scratcher

    I kind of liked the original ending as well, but probably only with the VO that created an ambiguity about the length of time they had together.

  • July 31, 2007, 7:18 a.m. CST

    If you think a a Rep-Deckard is like a washing machine

    by Mr Squirrel

    Then you've missed the point of the movie.

  • July 31, 2007, 7:39 a.m. CST

    "Remember Demolition Man?"

    by wookie1972

    Sorry, but words fail me... Demolition Man is to Blade Runner as, well, Sylvester Stallone is to Harrison Ford. Yes, I realize that that's a fallacious argument, but, seriously, they're on complete different levels.<br> IMHO, Deckard-as-Replicant doesn't work either as a plot device or thematically, for most of the reasons mentioned above. As Trazadone has mentioned before, it's the kind of cheap device that non-writers think is "cool," but which adds nothing to the story. <br> As I wrote before, Deckard is human, and therefore mortal and aware of his mortality. He can feel kinship with replicants without actually being one himself. Frankly, all this started because Scott, while smart enough to visualize a beautiful movie, is too dumb to understand a metaphor.

  • July 31, 2007, 7:40 a.m. CST

    the humanity of a replicant

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    I don't know if I agree livingwater. I always thought that the film was supposed to challenge our notion of "what is human?". The revelation that Deckard is a replicant reinforces this theme and makes Roy Batty & co. more sympathetic. I always thought the Roy character was the real hero of the film anyway and Deckard was the unemotional killing machine. Hell, at least Roy had friends!

  • July 31, 2007, 7:56 a.m. CST

    Some guys need to read first before answering

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    To "livingwater": Yes, that does imply that they worked before but my statement referred to the guy who claimed that they worked more than 4 years (the replicant lifespan).<p>To "wookie1972": hell, I just used that quote to point out my argument NOT to put Blade Runner and Demo Man on the same level. *sigh*

  • July 31, 2007, 8:19 a.m. CST

    barbarian etc

    by Colonel_Blimp

    imo, it is much more "sympathetic" and poignant if batty saves the life of human Deckard rather than replicant Deckard. You see, if he saves Replicant Deckard, then that's just him saving one of his own. But if he saves human Deckard, that means he has learnt to value life, any life, so much that he is willing to save even his worst enemy. When he yells kinship, he's not implying they're both replicants, he's stating that there is a bond between them because they are both ALIVE (sounds cheesy when I say it like that). That is poingancy. That is reinforcing the theme of what is human. Because if a machine can learn to value life, then perhaps Deckard can as well. You said it yourself: "I always thought the Roy character was the real hero of the film anyway and Deckard was the unemotional killing machine." That's completely correct, and the irony/poignancy of it all is that the machine turns out to be the hero, and the "real" human turns out to be an inhumane (not non-human) killer. What would be the point in making the inhumane human killer actually turn out to be an inhumane killing machine/robot. What's that saying of the human condition. To sum up: inhumane human vs. humane robot = poignancy, inhumane robot vs robot-loving robot = no emotional or intellectual depth.

  • July 31, 2007, 8:21 a.m. CST

    kusanagi: pot. kettle. black.

    by wookie1972

    You need to read where I said that I realize that that's a fallacious argument. But seriously - do you actuallyt think that the LA police in BR are as dumb as the police in Demo Man? <br> I'm not saying that Scott didn't put clues to suggest that Deckard is a replicant. I'm just saying that it frankly ruins the plot if he is.

  • July 31, 2007, 8:24 a.m. CST

    scratcher and dollarbird

    by RockLobster800

    its DECARD! not "dekker".....sorry, I just wanted to say something and that was all I could think to point out....

  • July 31, 2007, 8:26 a.m. CST

    it is much more "sympathetic" and poignant if batty sav

    by Lost Prophet

    "it is much more "sympathetic" and poignant if batty saves the life of human Deckard rather than replicant Deckard". No. It is irrelevant as neither character knows Deckard is a replicant. Batty thinks he is saving a human, and Deckard thinks he is a human.

  • July 31, 2007, 8:30 a.m. CST


    by RockLobster800

    boy is my face red...any way I know Scott said he was a replicant but surely the point of Blade Runner was that Deckard is a miserable bastard human who hates his life and takes it for granted where as Roy is an artificial being who enjoys every second of Scott kind of ruins the poetry of his own movie....

  • July 31, 2007, 8:31 a.m. CST

    fair enough, lost prophet

    by Colonel_Blimp

    but that's assuming batty doesn't know. a lot of people here are saying that he does know. that response was for them.

  • July 31, 2007, 8:32 a.m. CST

    Good on, Colonel Blimp

    by wookie1972

    "That's completely correct, and the irony/poignancy of it all is that the machine turns out to be the hero, and the "real" human turns out to be an inhumane (not non-human) killer." Spot on. It would be like if, at the end of Moby-Dick, you find out the whale actually was God rather than just a metaphor for God.

  • July 31, 2007, 8:54 a.m. CST

    Colonel_Blimp makes some good points...

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    ... but I don't think Deckard's status as a replicant spoils the symmetry of the film ala Roy/replicant vs. Deckard/human. The theme of the film in my opinion was for the audience to question "what is human?" and for the audience to discover Deckard's origin reinforces this theme. Don't read to much into the original voiceover explanation Deckard gives for Roy not killing him. Neither Ridley Scott nor Harrison Ford were happy about it's inclusion. Even if he is not human Deckard "did a man's job" by killing his own kind. Anyway, all sides of this talkback make valid points, I guess this is why they are releasing ALL versions of the film in December.

  • July 31, 2007, 9 a.m. CST

    The point of the ending, for me...

    by access virus

    <p>... is that Deckard, our hero we've been rooting for the whole film turns out to be a machine ... there's the theme of the film right there, that humans and reps aren't so different, and we've been made to "feel" it by empathising with our fellow human Deckard who turns out to be a replicant all along.</P> <p>This is just my opinion of course.</p> <p>Bryant and Gaff knew Deckard was a replicant, Deckard was a tool that the Bladerunner (Gaff) used.</p> <p>IMHO, again.</p>

  • July 31, 2007, 9:14 a.m. CST

    I like what access virus has to say.

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    This is what I've been trying to say about our preconceived notions about humanity.

  • July 31, 2007, 9:22 a.m. CST

    The audience is SUPPOSED to feel something?

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    The fact is, if Scott put clues in the movie that Deckard is a replicant - and I mean BESIDES the unicorn which was done after the fact - he did a horrible job. Yep, a horrible job executing a stupid idea.<p>This debate would be a lot simpler if they hadn't released new versions that changed the movie fundamentally. These "clues" people refer to would be a lot harder to argue for without the dipshit director stirring the pot.

  • July 31, 2007, 9:27 a.m. CST

    access virus

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Ha that's just what I don't like about the revisionist versions.Not because I disagree with what you think the theme is, but because I agree. I think that the idea that humans and replicants aren't so different is better served - more intelligently, more artfully - without the reveal that Deckard is a replicant. The scene at the end with Batty is ALREADY emotional and sad. The audience ALREADY has empathy and is making the connection between the two characters on screen: One human, one almost-human. The whole point comes across beautifully without the clumsy gotcha Scott introduced. (As I keep saying, half the problem with the Deckard-as-replicant idea is it's so half-assed in its execution)

  • July 31, 2007, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Sorry, I don't see it...

    by wookie1972

    There is still very little empirical evidence that Deckard is a replicant within the movie itself. The unicorn isn't definitive proof at all - it could have been a dream triggered by something in Rachael's memories, which both Deckard and Gaff had access to. If it's meant to signify that Deckard is a replicant, it's poorly done. For one thing, Deckard's reaction to the origami unicorn is totally out of character with that possibility - if Deckard is just realizing that he's a replicant, he would be have a much stronger reaction. instead, he just sort of nods, which is more in keeping with the other implied meaning of the origami - that Deckard knows that Gaff was there, but spared Rachael's life.

  • July 31, 2007, 9:33 a.m. CST


    by Colonel_Blimp

    I'm not reading to much into the original narration. But it's a fact that Batty saves Deckard. What other reasons would he have for doing it, if not because he feels, as he says, kinship with deckard?

  • July 31, 2007, 9:38 a.m. CST

    amen thunderbolt

    by wookie1972

    I didn't read your comment until after I posted my last one, but I pretty much agree completely. I stand by my Moby-Dick analogy. Melville wanted the whale to represent (among other things) the futility of trying to get revenge on God and nature. If Melville had written on the last page that (surprise!) the whale actually was the Creator Of The Universe, it would be just sad rather than profound.

  • July 31, 2007, 9:41 a.m. CST


    by LaserPants

    Are both works of genius, but, for my money, CHILDREN OF MEN is the bestest. Still, both are in my top ten of all time, so, I give big sloppy wet kisses to both, as should you all, but wait your turn, 'cause I'm the jealous type.

  • July 31, 2007, 9:49 a.m. CST

    If the theatrical release of the film works for you...

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    ...fine. It's a great movie ( I could have done without the voiceover,as it was poorly written & executed) But for those of us who like the Deckard as replicant version, I believe it's valid too. Indeed if this was Ridley Scott's original intention it could have done in a more cohesive manner.

  • July 31, 2007, 9:55 a.m. CST

    access, if we were meant to empathise with deckard

    by Colonel_Blimp

    I believe he would have been portrayed more sympathetic. I think that was why it never got much acclaim on its initial release: people find it really hard to relate to such an unsympathetic protagonist. As it is, Deckard comes across as kind of a prick, and the revelation of "asshole human detective turns out to be robot" isn't really gut wrenching, if you ask me. Rethorical question: what illustrates the bond betweeen human and replicant the most, a robot being able to kill and be an asshole, or a robot being able to feel?

  • July 31, 2007, 9:59 a.m. CST

    Did You Know That Soylent Green Is People?!

    by LaserPants

    All of these bold statements about the themes of empathy and "what makes us human" as presented in BLADE RUNNER are really amusing. You do realize that theres nothing hidden there? That the message is screaming at you? That one of the main characters (Batty) has, like, a 5 minute soliloquy on the subject/theme at the end? Congratualtions Encyclopedia Brown! You found the hidden meaning! Lol Now lets pretend we're the only people who ever uncovered the noirish moral ambiguity in BLADE RUNNER and the nods to FRANKENSTEIN.

  • July 31, 2007, 10:09 a.m. CST

    Funny thing about the Directors's Cut

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I don't mind most of the changes. I like the VO, but it's fine without it. I like the ending with the elevator doors closing; I like them going off into nature ... it's just that one ... huge ... change.

  • July 31, 2007, 10:11 a.m. CST

    What Makes Me Cry In BLADE RUNNER

    by LaserPants

    Is how desperately I'd like to live in LA 2019 and how its never gonna happen, cause LA 2019 is probably gonna look alot more like London 2020 in CHILDREN OF MEN and/or be a smoking crater. BLADE RUNNER makes 'bleak' seem beautiful.

  • July 31, 2007, 10:11 a.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I don't see anyone here writing about it in the way you describe. The debate is how the message is conveyed vis a vis the identity of one of the characters, not how clever anyone is for discovering it. An overtly stated theme is still worthy of discusssion.

  • July 31, 2007, 10:18 a.m. CST

    Thunderbolt Ross

    by LaserPants

    Thats true. I was just being a jerk. Appy Polly Logies! <br><br>And so, in that case, although I am a vigorous advocate for the awesomeness of The Directors Cut, the Original Theatrical cut does explore the same themes -- just not as well. The voiceover really kills it; its like sandpaper to me, and rips me right out of the movie. Like you were watching the movie with somebody who had to keep telling you everything he thinks and feels while watching it. With The Directors Cut, I feel like I'm there, with Deckard, slowly putting the pieces together, feeling that empathy, and realizing, "shit, for all I know, I may be a Replicant too! Now lets catch that elevator."

  • July 31, 2007, 10:31 a.m. CST

    laserpants is kind of on to something...

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    ...he was an asshole with the first few posts, but he redeemed himself at the end...kind of like Deckard.

  • July 31, 2007, 11:43 a.m. CST

    Thunderbolt Ross

    by access virus

    I see what you're saying, I guess we just have two differing views, no worries :)

  • July 31, 2007, 11:44 a.m. CST

    Colonel Blimp

    by access virus

    <p>I think you've got a good point, though I can only say when I watched it I preferred Deckard to the replicants because Roy and Pris were damn scary lol!</p> <p> Deckard certainly did have his asshole moments, and he's not a great role model for sure, though I did root for him over Batty due to the Tyrell murder. I know that many (most?) people don't think much of Deckard though, so point taken.</p> <p> This whole talkback has got me anticipating the DVD more than ever, hope the final cut has a decent theatrical release!</p>

  • July 31, 2007, 11:49 a.m. CST

    barbarian, more like batty, actually...

    by Colonel_Blimp

    this is a great TB, by the way!

  • July 31, 2007, 11:59 a.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I can see it being a drag, especially if you saw it w/o it first. It basically makes it a different movie, a bit more of an obvious noir throwback, and less arty perhaps. I can see that as being a bit lame, but obviously for me it has its charms too.

  • July 31, 2007, 12:30 p.m. CST

    The voice over didn't work for me, but...

    by The Central Scrutinizer a plot device I like the idea. Two film noir classics that are among my favorite films have voice over narration. "Double Indemnity" & "Sunset Blvd" use a voice over effectively. It's just that having seen the "Blade Runner" director's cut, it seems that everything in the voice over can be gleaned by the viewer independently and it's especially unnecessary during the Roy Batty death scene.

  • July 31, 2007, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Fans of all the versions are going to win...

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    ...My DVD of the Director's cut is one of the first disks that I bought in the late 90's. It is from a decent print, but it's not remastered and the transfer is grainy as hell. Also I has no extras at all, so I'm probably getting the suitcase version.

  • July 31, 2007, 1:49 p.m. CST

    VO Redux

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    Yeah the VO is redundant to a degree -many are; I think the idea is that it adds that noir flavor, or makes it more overt. I always miss Deckard talking about his wife in the VO.<p>I'd like the set with the workprint but I can't have that fucking suitcase in my home. So choice #2 for me.

  • July 31, 2007, 2:02 p.m. CST

    VO redux II

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    I haven't seen the theatrical version since my VCR quit working five years ago and I never bothered to replace it. I'm looking forward to watching all the various cuts of the film ( probably back-to-back).

  • July 31, 2007, 2:03 p.m. CST

    Michelangelo Antonioni is dead as well

    by RokurGepta


  • July 31, 2007, 2:28 p.m. CST

    VO Threedux

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    I don't have anything to add; I just felt like beating a dead horse.

  • July 31, 2007, 2:31 p.m. CST

    they're ALL replicants!

    by newc0253

    humanity was secretly exterminated by the tyrell corporation and replaced with replicants. ah, such a clever twist. also, the city of the future is actually in a park somewhere in rural pennsylvannia and when deckard drives out in to countryside at the end, he comes across a park ranger circa 2004.

  • July 31, 2007, 3:05 p.m. CST

    Did Scott revise Deckard

    by fish tacos

    into a replicant after the film was finished, because of Ford's performance? I know Ford wasn't happy on set, and it was a really uncomfortable, confrontational shoot- but even then, his performance was very peculiar. Not that I don't love it- it makes BR the masterpiece that it is.<br> <br>I could see Scott changing his mind after seeing just how odd and replicant-like Deckard ended up. As a director maybe the question was there in his mind early on but after filming it and seeing Ford's Deckard, it became much more interesting for him. And after all the time he has invested, I can respect that.

  • July 31, 2007, 3:18 p.m. CST

    VO Quadux

    by The Central Scrutinizer

    Consider it beaten.

  • July 31, 2007, 3:22 p.m. CST

    Where is the Michelangelo Antonioni talkback?

    by RokurGepta


  • July 31, 2007, 3:34 p.m. CST

    Keanu was a replicant

    by scratcher

    I mean, in each of his films the director should have retroactively decided that he was an android, based on his performances.

  • July 31, 2007, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Decent food still matters in bleak future according . .

    by WX1

    <p>. . . to Voight-Kampff test</p> <p>How ‘bout this: Deckard’s last question to Rachael’s ends up in zero reaction to the notion of boiled dog as a main course is boiled dog. The rest of us (since we’re human) industrialized nation types certainly have even the slightest disdain by the mere prospect in our movie theatre seats or couches at home – I dunno about you, but, I’ve never gotten used to the image offered by Deckard since I initially heard them. You?</p> <p>At the beginning of the film, Deckard wants FISHHEADS on his noodles from the East Asian noodle proprietor. Odd, no? You don’t see anyone else ordering fish heads. Now, I love sashimi, but, hold the damn fish heads, please. Does ANYONE out there favor fish heads instead of the rest of the fish? Ask the waiter, “wait, WHERE the hell are the fish heads?” when ordering seafood at the restaurant? Wouldn’t necessarily make me excuse myself from the room the way boiled dog would, but, I would certainly let someone have MY share of fishheads. Like the song goes, “rolly polly fishheads, eat them up, yum” – the line’s MEANT to be preposterous, outrageous.</p> <p>Anybody read “American Psycho” where the Asian laundromat attendant ignores the immense bloodstains on Bateman’s bedsheets? Bateman’s doesn’t care if they end up calling the cops on him, apparently, ‘specially with that nasty attitude of his.</p> <p>Maybe it takes being politically incorrect to do so (and, heck, since we discussed race already in this thread), but, maybe the comment on East Asian enterprise in America in both separate accounts acts also as a metaphor to overtly reveal that which is intended to be hidden for the respective main characters? I’m not trying to be a smart@$$, by the way; noboty likes a smart@$$ after all.</p> <p>Just speculatin’. I’m still with the ambiguity tip in terms of ‘splanation for BR (not Fukasaku's).</P>

  • July 31, 2007, 3:47 p.m. CST

    Man, I love this talkback!

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    Best in a long time! Thank you all for sharing your thoughts!

  • July 31, 2007, 4:15 p.m. CST


    by access virus

    That's interesting stuff, I would have never thought of that.

  • July 31, 2007, 5:08 p.m. CST

    wx1, my father eats fishheads

    by Colonel_Blimp

    don't know if he dreams about unicorns, though. Someone asked about the workprint earlier on. anybody got any details on that? I'm still on the fence whether I should get the suitcase or not. My friends will beat me up if they see it (as will my replicant father), but if the workprint is worth it, I might be persuaded.

  • July 31, 2007, 5:35 p.m. CST

    Absolutely, fisheads . . .

    by WX1

    <p>. . . might be favored by some. More power to 'em and your pa', Col. Just, I dunno, just doesn't seem to be a favored portion of the fishy by most, is all.</p> <p>If the that police cruiser car only came with the four discs in the briefcase I'd be happy; still figerring, though . . . do I really just need the four disc or the whole shebang.</P> <p>Yeah, thanks access virus. Nice, subtle happening in the film, slipped under the radar-like. Purloined letter-style and all</p> <p>OT: Figure Tay Zonday might do well to release a record on the same release date as the Final Cut. "Chocolate Raiiiiiiiin . . ." :). Heck, I'd support the guy; I mean, you know how there's ALWAYS something else available to destroy your wallet on release day anyway.</P>

  • July 31, 2007, 5:58 p.m. CST


    by Thunderbolt Ross

    The reason why it makes a difference is two-fold: One, it makes the delivery of the central theme/question more clumsy. Two it's doubly clumsy because it's not handled very well. It makes the movie worse, because it's a silly idea. <p>And it's a silly idea because contextually, in the flow of the film, it's not asserted in an assertive manner. <p>In other words, I imagine if they started off thinking "Hey I got this idea for a story with a twist ending where the guy finds out he is what he is pursuing" the idea would have been better served. <p>So it's not a bad idea from an objective standpoint, but subjectively, within the film that actually exists, it doesn't work very well.

  • July 31, 2007, 6:54 p.m. CST

    Roy saving Deckard

    by scratcher

    There's no connection there to Deckard being a replicant or not. For one thing, there's absolutely no reason that Roy'd know (if it's true, that is). Secondly, the point is that Roy is about to die and all that matters to him is how precious life is. His saving the human who was out to kill him demonstrates that Roy is the greater "man." He's lived a greater life than Deckard, and "seen things you wouldn't believe." (Is he Nietzsche's ubermensch?)<P> I hadn't considered it before, but I agree that Roy is the real hero of the film. But Deckard is an empty vessell who mostly serves to represent the audience.

  • July 31, 2007, 10:12 p.m. CST

    Is this coming to Blu Ray/HD-DVD?

    by Dr. Chim Richalds

    Did I miss that announcement?

  • July 31, 2007, 11:59 p.m. CST

    All Versions available, I'm good with that.

    by gad

    Really, he's not pulling a Lucas where Lucas decided to make the original disappear from availability. Scott is doing what many musicians do with their music - creating variations on the theme. I'm good with the original, it's the one I first saw, it's the 'official' version as far as I'm concerned. Decker is a human but we're not sure, all is good. Everything else is just a variation of the themes. Ridley wants to squish on some new cgi, some more boobies, great, I'll buy the one with the four versions and take a peek at the new stuff as well. The dude is seventy odd years old and is entitled to play around like this and since he's not trying to take the original to my eyes version then I'm good with it and look forward to the new release.

  • Aug. 1, 2007, 1:58 a.m. CST


    by Abhimanyu

    I absolutely accept all comments that what I think is mainly conjecture - I don't know if it is 99%, but I accept the point. However, one of things that I love about the movie is the room for conjecture - otherwise called ambiguity by people - and it diffuses, indeed makes more palatable, the first-glance coldness of characters in the movie. The entire idea of examining programming, decreptitude, the quest for life, the desperation - all are there to blur the lines between man and machine. In fact, one of the things that scholars latch on to is the fact that world-building and exploration of "high" concepts (what is the meaning of life? what are we here for?)by a "low" form (both Sci-fi and Noir)is one of those "facets of postmodernism". In any case, I do think that there are instances, like Rachel's question if Deckard has taken the test himself, teh parallels drawn between the replicants and Sebastian, Tyrell's conversation with Deckard before rachel's test - all of these, to me at least, hint at the direction my conjecture could take. Also, even though Gaff's line of "too bad she won't live" is quoted above, I don't think it is about a glimmer of hope. I think the important thing is the "but then again, who does?" part - something that reinforces the parallels and also serves as a warning - Deckard himself won't live. I may be wrong, but the "hope" comes from the voiceover - "Tyrell had told me she wasn't like the others - she didn't have a shortened lifespan" which was added after test audiences didn't like the "elevator door closes" ending that the director's cut went back to. Still, good discussions. Great Talkback.

  • Aug. 1, 2007, 9:57 a.m. CST

    I wish I knew how to quit you!

    by Thunderbolt Ross

    It was a good TB. And my grasp of percentages is dubious at best. Forgot about the hopeful VO. That is sort of weak, actually.

  • Aug. 2, 2007, 10:12 a.m. CST

    If you have enjoyed this talkback

    by Mr Squirrel

    why not finish off your internet viewing pleasure by viewing my art portfolio at It doesn't feature any Blade-Runner art, but it does feature pieces inspired by Kelly's Heroes, Robert Mitchum, The Beatles, The Thing, Elvis,and lots of Laser-Monkeys. If you're not interested, simply ignore.