Cool News
Come on, Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! I’m right here, but you gotta shoot straight!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with today’s Behind the Scenes Pic!
This shot of Harrison Ford and Rutger Hauer during the climactic rooftop fight at the end of Blade Runner is stunning. Not only is it from one of the most memorable scenes in this awesome movie, but I love the atmosphere and the look on both the actor’s faces.
Is Ridley Scott just off-camera giving direction? Could very well be!
Thanks again to Jordan Krug for sending this one along! Click to embiggen!
If you have a behind the scenes shot you’d like to submit to this column, you can email me at quint@aintitcool.com.
Tomorrow’s behind the scenes pic is gonna fly now.
-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus-
+ Expand All
-
Awesome but flawed movie.
-
June 9, 2011, 6:30 p.m. CST
Where the F are the Prometheus pics? Can somebody LARGE and IN-CHARGE point me to them please?
by Darth_Kong
http://www.avpgalaxy.net/2011/06/09/prometheus-set-pictures/#comments
-
...looks mighty impatient. Rutger looks zen. Interesting dynamic.
-
Hauer was amazing.
-
June 9, 2011, 6:48 p.m. CST
Geektatd, then how do you explain the ending i.e. the VERY reason second cut even exists?
by Proman1984
He is a replicant, just a different model.
-
"James is no Jordan."
-
In the opening text you may notice that REPLICANTS is in red lettering, and a moment later BLADE RUNNER is also in the same red lettering. I di not catch it before but after hearing the rumors (substantiated?!?!) I saw that and thought, OK. Plus it does seem that some of the dynamics between Ford and the other police characters is weird, like htey know and are playing dumb with him. Maybe it was just my framing though.
-
understands them. The fact that he, himself, is in doubt gives him a reason to run. And that's the sequel I want to see. I want to see the Blade Runner running. And if he's running, the feds have to chase. They chase only because he's running (not because they know for sure that he is a replicant or not) but he feels that them chasing him verifies further that he is a replicant. And whether he is or not, he gets closer personally to more replicants who are hiding. So that in the end, he doesn't care if he is one or not. He recognizes the hunt as wrong. And at the end, I don't want to know if he's a replicant or not. It's more fun this way.
-
http://www.shocktillyoudrop.com/news/topnews. php?id=19527 <p> Cool.
-
...then the story is robbed of all meaning and poetry.
-
Star wars vs. Star trek TOS vs. TNG Ridley vs. Cameron Godfather vs. Godfather Part 2 Jacob vs. MIB Police Academy vs. Police Academy 2 Every year one side seems to gain some leverage but alas the battles will never be won. The ultimate False dawn.
-
June 9, 2011, 8:05 p.m. CST
I've Been Making That "Ass Kicked" Anti-Replicant Argument For Some Time
by Aquatarkusman
The rationalizations around it are about as weird and hollow as that stupid, retrofitted, Final 5 bullshit on BSG.
-
Like with a passion? I wonder why.
-
Suited perfectly Hauer's european 'Je ne sais quoi' , fit for a replicant's naivete, menace, conflict and 'alt-human' demeanor.
-
Fucking awesome movie!!<br> <br> <br>
-
June 9, 2011, 8:57 p.m. CST
Actually, the BEST moment of this scene occurs just as Deckard loses his grip on the roof's edge and...
by Mr. Nice Gaius
...spits at Roy Batty. Deckard's last act of defiance against what he thought was Roy's indifference. It's such an awesome touch and, for years, I never noticed it because of the drama of the moment.
-
Thanks. Those high paid entertainment lawyers must be tearing down those pics fast.
-
you brade runner, you decca!
-
if a machine saves a machine, ok. but if a machine saves a human, that's another whole different point. deckard not being a replicant, just a normal human being, ressonates much better to me.
-
Deckard is a human in the original and screen-writer's version, and in Ford's mind. Deckard is a replicant in Ridely's mind and in his Director's Cut version. . The screen writer never envisioned or considered Deckard to be a replicant. However, in an earlier version of the script, ROy made some comment about him and Deckard being like brothers. It was supposed to be a line about Deckard's lack of emotions and psychopathy, but Ridely mis-read it as a revelation that Deckard was a replicant. So, the entire idea is based on a misunderstanding on Ridely's part. . . As for Ford hating Ridely, it wouldn't surprise me. Eddie Olmos hated him and refused to do SciFi for years after Blade Runner.
-
...Deckard IS a Replicant, but he's been programmed to believe he's human. He gets his ass kicked because his program limits him from performing at the same level as the Nexus 6 Replicants do. Or, his belief in his own programming inhibits him. Or he's just some schmuck in the wrong place at the wrong time. ??Pseudo?? Out.
-
June 9, 2011, 10 p.m. CST
Didn't Scott flat out SAY he was a replicant? If so, then what is the discussion?
by Jerry Piper
I mean... really, cmon.
-
'92 version: Replicant Source Novel: Human
-
It doesn't really matter whether Deckard is a replicant or not, since they may as well have been individual living beings anyways. The entire point one way or the other was the desire to live, and what you do with that life. <p> On a more technical level, I think that there are deeper clues as to Deckard being a replicant (other than the faint back-glow in the eyes that he has when he takes Rachel to his apartment; ie the visual que as to all other replicants): all humans such as Gaff, the police chief, Tyrell, "Lo Pan" (the eye specialist), J.F., even the crowd are all passive to the action throughout the story. It is as if all of humanity (by the time of BLADE RUNNER) had become slaves of a sort to machines to the degree that only machines now have the passion to actually fight for life. <p> If you notice, Ridley in the commentary makes a point that when you first see Deckard, the impression is that he was just plopped there in the middle of the street. His hair style (extremely short; combed down) implies a similar style to newborns. But on top of this, my guess is that Gaff is the REAL Blade Runner, and that Deckard was activated due to Holden being put into critical condition. <p> A "Blade Runner" replicant would be expendable, and a perfect tool in that he would be willingly hunting down his own kind without any realization. If he dies, they pop out another. If he succeeds, maybe he gets to live the rest of his (3.5 years of) life comfortably. Or maybe he goes back into storage. Even so, Gaff is always close at hand, giving him enough room to make his own investigation, but close enough in case he has to retire Deckard with the rest of the rebel replicants. <p> In the end, whether Deckard is a replicant or not, all that matters is that Batty considered life to be more important than revenge, especially considering that he knew he only had a few minutes left before dying himself. Then again, maybe Batty figured it out himself (regarding Deckard's "humanity") and that is one of the reasons he chose to save a fellow brother. Maybe Batty was aware of Rachel, and combined with an intuition of Deckard being of a similar stock, did what he did with the intention of Deckard "picking up the baton", so to speak. <p> But, to quote a more well-known a$$hole, that's just me... I could be wrong.
-
June 10, 2011, 12:02 a.m. CST
In regards to Deckard's lack of replicant super-strength...
by Monroville
If he was specifically designed as a Blade Runner "worm" agent (with Gaff being his "reeler"), it would be safe to assume that all Blade Runner replicants would be programmed to have normal strength levels, not just to further convince them of their perceived humanity, but to make them easier to retire in case they turned. <p> Remember, Deckard has a state-of-the-art police weapon. Replicants were dangerous enough with their bare hands... imagine Roy Batty with Deckard's firearm (or even stronger weapons).
-
June 10, 2011, 1:46 a.m. CST
Prometheus Photos here get them before they disappear
by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm
http://gordonandthewhale.com/first-photos-emerge-from-the-set-of-ridley-scotts-prometheus/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=first-photos-emerge-from-the-set-of-ridley-scotts-prometheus
-
"ROCKY" gonna fly now . . .
-
I'm not arguing one way or the other. I just want to know why anyone would have a problem with Deckard being a replicant. How does that change the dynamic for the worse? I get that Batty saving a definitively human Deckard shows that Batty ultimately respects life, but Batty saving a replicant Deckard shows that Batty knows his time is up and wants Deckard to realize how short life is as a replicant. Either way Batty's last act carries with it a great deal of nobility. There's NO downside to replicant Deckard.
-
Totally agree with you. What I like about the ending is that Deckard, a human, spends the whole movie hunting and killing those replicants, and seems completely detachted from everything, while Roy Batty seems ALIVE. I just love that in the end, the replicant, the machine, saves the one human being he has every reason to kill. With Deckard being a Replicant, which is nothing more than a cheap twist at the end, this message gets lost. Thats why, in my mind, Deckard is and will always be human, Unicorns or not...
-
see the comment I just posted...
-
June 10, 2011, 5:22 a.m. CST
All this Deckard is a Replicant stuff,is purely a retcon bullshit
by KilliK
and Ridley is fucking lying when he says that this was his intention from the beginning. Just watch the original movie before fucking it up with his DC changes,and you will see that there is no subtextual notion at all from the script to the direction that Deckard was a replicant. After the movie became a cult and the theory among the fans that Deckard was a Replicant started to gain popularity,it was then that Ripley adopted it and claimed that this is what he wanted to do before the studio's interference. fucking liar. Besides as some talkbackers above correctly stated,Deckard NOT being a human automatically negates the whole point of the movie and harms the drama and meaning of one of the best scenes in the whole cinematic scifi genre. FACT.
-
Anyone catch the Nexus 6 cut? There's an extra twenty-so minutes of footage and it's abundantly clear that Deckard is a replicant. The ambiguity of the original cut is, I feel, what gives the movie so much more resonance.
-
retcon bullshit. the dream shot was shoot afterwards and specifically after the movie became cult and gained so much popularity that it had a second theatrical run,this time with,surprise surprise Ridley's DC and the unicorn scene. If the unicorn scene was meant to be shot from the start,then somewhere,somehow there would have been mentions about it before the movie's original theatrical premiere and before it became a cult.
-
You are wrong on just about everything here. The deleted scenes and testimony from everyone (including Ford) in the documentaries on the DVD clearly establish that Ridley Scott developed the Deckard-is-a-replicant idea during the making of the film. Some of the tension between Ford and Scott was because of this Deckard/replicant idea and Ford fought it all the way through shooting. The unicorn scene was shot while the film was being edited, not long after it had become a cult hit as you mistakenly suggest. This is all shown in incredible detail in the DVD extras.
-
That line always blows me away.
-
I know I'm reiterating what has already been said but the whole theme of the movie (as well as Dick's book) is a study of what it means to be human. The drama is in the juxtaposition of how cold and robot like Deckard the human is versus the incredibly emotional replicants striving to be human. If you make Deckard a replicant it shits all over the theme and takes what is a very deep philosophical movie and makes it cheap and shallow. I don't care if Deckard was a replicant in Scott's mind...it's a really stupid idea. I think I've watched the UK version about 50 times and it is without a doubt my favorite. I like the fim noire feel of the overdub and I HATE the leftover Legend footage that is the unicorn dream sequence. Gaff leaves the unicorn origami to show he had been there and recognized that Rachael was unique and one of a kind or that what Deckard and Rachael had was unique and one of a kind.
-
I know the unicorn dream sequence wasn't actually leftover Legend footage...just always felt like that to me. It totally takes me out of the movie. I like Ridley Scott...he's made a lot movies I really enjoy and this is one of my favorites but I just do not get why he insists on trying piss all over his own movie by making Deckard a replicant. More Human than Human is our motto...which is proven out when Batty the replicant saves Deckard the human acting more human in that moment than any of the actual humans.
-
I love the pic, and I must say, I love the debate of Deckard being a replicant. Why? Because it's not an argument about which movie series is better, it's about what ONE movie is about. That said, I will offer my puny thoughts. Scott says 100% replicant. Ford says 100 % not. I think the (implied) brilliance of Scott is that he never mentioned it to Ford during filming. Why? Maybe, just maybe, Scott didn't want that piece of info to affect Ford's performance. If you tell your hero he may be something else, he may tweak his performance. Hell, the answer to "How can it not know what it is?" is simple: "Because your director doesn't tell you what you are." However, my personal opinion, no matter which cut you watch, is that Deckard is NOT a replicant. I think that what we are shown on screen points to one conclusion: If the Tyrell Corporation was aiming towards the perfect replicant, it seems like Deckard IS that replicant! My beef is that it seems like every character that Deckard comes into contact with that knows Deckard would have to know he is not human, and for that to be true, everyone has to be a damn good actor to pretend that he is human. And it is that notion that I don't buy.
-
Not because I say so. I'm just another talk backer. It's because Philip K. Dick said so. The whole point of the story was that Deckard's job was robbing him of his humanity which he finally regains by being saved by a replicant who's greatest wish is to become human himself. Philip K. Dick gave an interview about his inspiration for the original story. It was from reading a diary entry of a Nazi Concentration camp guard who couldn't sleep because of the noise the starving children made. The point being, it was JUST the noise, not that fact that real live fellow humans were suffering and dying. It was just the inconvenience. He had lost any traces of what made him human and became in essence a non-human. If Deckard was a replicant then his story arc is meaningless. Scott's revisionist opinion on this point is puzzling, odd and wrong. Also read samurhino's posts.
-
I just want to point out to you that while P.K. Dick has the 100%, absolute final word on what his STORY says, it has little influence on what the FILM says. Don't get me wrong, please, I agree with you guys, really. But do you actually want to have a debate on Books Vs. Films? On what happens when Hollywood buys the rights to famous novels? Plot lines and characters get axed and combined, new ones are added, and meanings get lost. Just because Dick wrote his book that way, doesn't mean Scott has to adhere to it. However, that does not lessen the fact that Scott seemed to be the only one on the entire production that held this belief. If I'm the screenwriter, I may have an opinion. As far as the arc of the film's meaning, one COULD argue (not me, mind you) that Batty was going to die right there anyway, and he wanted to go out on a human-like note, so he allows Deckard to live. It wouldn't matter that Deckard wasn't human at that point, Batty THINKS Deckard is human, so the act loses no meaning to him. Thusly, one could argue that Batty's speech about making the most of one's time in life spurs Deckard to run away with Rachael, and as the original voiceover said, "Who knows how long we have together", they were going to make the most of it. So, the overall message doesn't necessarily become moot. BUT AGAIN, I agree with both of you, I believe he is human. Again, the three of us agree, we just differ on the reasons why.
-
That was the whole point of the story. The final cut doesn't subtract from that fact though, and in fact enhances it--so I think Scott was just fucking with people. So, the real question isn't whether Deckard was human--it's whether Scott was being serious when he said what he said.
-
stemmed from script-problems in pre-production. This is extensively covered in the Dangerous Days DVD; Fancher's draft of the novel just didn't sit well with Scott and some of the producers; they got Peoples to come in and finish it up, and consequently the focus changed a little (or a lot depending on your viewpoint). I can't remember what Scott originally intended to make, but I'm sure it wasn't meant to be a sci-fi "action" film ... but the studio or Alan Ladd Jr were looking at the success of Star Wars. (that's why the film got a summer release even though it was too smart for a summer flick) The Fancher/Peoples final draft was then handed over to somebody else completely and that is the person who wrote the pseudo-film noir voiceover, which as we all know nobody except the studio wanted. When Fancher and Peoples saw the final film, they both hated the voiceover but each thought the other had wrote it and because they were now friends they didn't want to say anything bad. I don't think either Fancher or Peoples intended Deckard to be human
-
June 10, 2011, 12:10 p.m. CST
Good points alyfox. My biggest gripe is Scott's revisionism and in my opinon, missing the whole point of the story.
by v3d
That said, Scott is absolutely brilliant at crafting layered, detailed, beautiful visuals. Blade Runner is still one of my all time favorites.
-
June 10, 2011, 5:04 p.m. CST
What revisionism, exactly? All the changes made to BR over the years were done to undo serious creative interference, not to update or special edition-ize.
by Karl Hungus
-
It would have been way too hard to fabricate an airtight cover story for him if he was a replicant. New apartment, ex-wife, friends in the police department. If he was a replicant just dropped into the world, wouldn't one of his fellow cops or apartment dwellers notice he just showed up out of nowhere, even in an overpopulated city? What about work records, W-2s, medical records, previous leases, parents, etc?
-
...check out the nexus6 cut which has photographs of Deckard with his wife...draw your own conclusions from that...
-
June 11, 2011, 10:10 a.m. CST
Nor Raiders Of The Lost Androids which is what the studio was hankering for....
by scrote
-
Nexus 6 cut? Sorry, I haven't heard of that. is that the infamous "workpprint"? Could someone post a link to site with those photos?
-
June 11, 2011, 11:04 a.m. CST
one possible piece of evidence for the "Deckard is a replicant" argument
by ragingfluff
Roy Batty knows his name.
-
not really an authentic version of the film
-
...it does give you an idea of the overall vision of the movie.... and there are no unicorns i should point out and the love scene between Deckard and Rachel is far more complex... But, aside that it may be a version of the workprint, it is very obvious that even at the outset Deckard was always a replicant
-
Not arguing that. He's said as much and I believe him...no reason not to. It's just that I don't accept it. Making Deckard a replicant is incredibly stupid and totally destroys the theme of the moview. I have no idea why Scott would do that but whatever...its basically selling out for a cheap twist and it's incredibly lame. For me...Deckard is human regardless of what Scott's intentions were. No one is going to change my mind and quite frankly I don't give a rats ass about all the supposed evidence on either side. To me the movie exists outside of Scott's intentions (or maybe in spite of them) and stands on its own to be interpreted in whatever way makes you happy. Deckard is human...that makes the most sense within the story and by far has the largest impact. End of story.
Top Talkbacks
- Spoilery early review of MAN OF STEEL!! -- 40 total posts 8 posts
- Papa Vinyard thinks that HANGOVER: PART III was a paycheck grab for a buncha people who are already rich!! -- 178 total posts 3 posts
- Ron Howard's latest trailer sure is a RUSH!!! -- 32 total posts 3 posts
- Holy Crossover!! Magneto’s Boy Quicksilver To Speed About In Whedon’s AVENGERS 2 And Singer’s X-MEN: DAYS OF FUTURE PAST?? -- 215 total posts 3 posts
- Green-Band and Red-Band trailers for the new Jason Sudeikis & Jennifer Aniston VACATION ripoff, WE'RE THE MILLERS are here!! -- 94 total posts 2 posts