Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

BLADE RUNNER Anniversary Screening W/Rutger Hauer and Joe Turkel!!

shite... there are no posts... does that mean I'm.... FIRST? by TheGinger Twit	Jul 2nd, 2002 12:18:25 AM
I watched bladerunner again to see what the hell is wrong with me... I still think this movie is sooo fuggen overrated.
rutger hauer by Lord Vetinari	Jul 2nd, 2002 12:19:56 AM
he was the BOMB in ladyhawke, yo
I'm pretty sure that they were all robots... by Fred4sure	Jul 2nd, 2002 12:38:40 AM
Or they were all being used as batteries for a nasty AI that couldn't build an atomic power plant.
I have great respect for Rutger Hauer by Darth Buttafuoco	Jul 2nd, 2002 12:54:17 AM
He was determined to be prolific in "Hollywood" films, and worked his ass off to speak English with no accent. I've always admired people fluent in more than one language. I've always had difficulty learning other languages myself. I'm rambling. I'll shut up now. Poop.
Nice Piece. Quentin Should Have Hired Rutger For Kill Bill by Son Of Batboy	Jul 2nd, 2002 01:07:52 AM
It's just I'd like to see Rutger in better projects than the straight to video dreck he's been relegated to. Its sad that better directors don't hire him for things. Really nice words from these guys. It's great to get their perspective on the film. I really like Rutger's summation. Damn, that was funny! And his advice to filmmakers was real insightful. Turkel's line to Scott about approaching Kubrick, just say "Joe says Hello", was also a beauty in its simplicity. It's strange, I was just thinking about Blade Runner today and wondering when the heck that DVD is coming out. Still don't know but damn I can't wait. I truly enjoyed this piece. I hope this kind of material makes it to the DVD.
JOE TURKEL IS THE MAN! by Uncapie	Jul 2nd, 2002 01:08:13 AM
One of the greatest character actors that hit the screen! Mr. Turkel is not only a nice guy, but next to the super cool, Timothy Carey, the only actor to have appeared in three Kubrick films! An incredible actor of range and depth!
Harry knew they would be classics! Woo woo! by eraser_x	Jul 2nd, 2002 01:22:39 AM
Does every single one of Harry's articles start with some boast about how he is/was so farsighted and wise? What will Harry do next? Tune in tomorrow, as Harry reveals his cure for cancer!!
The novel was the best version of Blade Runner by Moriarity Report	Jul 2nd, 2002 01:31:07 AM
The bit about Tyrell being kept up in the temple seemed fascinating...too bad it wasn't in the film, and too bad all of Scott's ingenious allusions to Deckard being a replicant were not in the film...and too bad the only scenes in the film that had any plot, passion or character development were Hauer's scenes.
Narrative version by BlackBeltJones	Jul 2nd, 2002 02:06:30 AM
I have always had a sweet spot in my heart for the original theatrical version with the Harrison Ford narrative in the background. I know everyone seems to dis that one, but I like it better than the director's cut for some reason. I hope that version is on the SE disc. I do like the ending of the Director's cut however. The ending in the theater seemed a bit to happy endingish. But I am sure that some bigwig somewhere thought the film needed a NIIIIIICCCCEEEE ending. The Belt Has Spoken
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. by Christopher3	Jul 2nd, 2002 02:42:40 AM
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C- beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Actually, they won't. I just always wanted to say that.
Rutger in Confessions of a dangerous mind by MaxCalifornia.	Jul 2nd, 2002 03:04:23 AM
He has a role in this flick, as a German hitman, so maybe it'll be the start of the Rutger Hauer comeback trail; he should do another flick with Verhoeven! I saw The Hitcher again on cable the other day, it's a really mesmerizing film, thanks completely to Hauer's performance as the enigmatic "John Ryder". That movie has held up pretty well for an 80s horror pic, it's all about the atmosphere.
Fucking overratted, Ginger. It's F - U - C - K - I - N - G by nazismasher	Jul 2nd, 2002 03:21:59 AM
What, we're channeling Norman Mailer over talkbacks, now? Anyhow, no, it's not fucking overrated says I. I thought the pacing was terrific, tempered, and I appreciate how Ridley let the story develop. Certain other director's should take their cue on how to let characters breathe rather than stifling them with embarrassing dialogue and gadgetry. Not, that that means I'm %100 correct. Just my opinion. BTW I was lucky enough to see this one cold-turkey on DVD several years ago. I admit it's definitely not for everyone.
Hey, EraserX....? by EricAlan69	Jul 2nd, 2002 03:23:04 AM
Um, the report was prefaced and epilogued by Moriarty, not Harry. Ergo, Harry had nothing to do with this piece. Therefore, why can't people fucking READ before they get themselves all gooey in a rush to post? // e.
Incorrect...there is ANOTHER actor who was in THREE Kubrick film by Nagual	Jul 2nd, 2002 04:47:37 AM
...the excellent Philip Stone. He was in 2001:ASO, A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, and THE SHINING. Memorable performances in each! And I am disappointed to hear Mr. Turkel disapproving of EYES WIDE SHUT. He has his entitled opinion, but it's the wrong one. ^_^
version by DH	Jul 2nd, 2002 05:00:40 AM
I actually like the original theatrical version with the voice over narrative. I know it was put on last minute after confused test screenings to make sure that dumb ass viewers could follow the plot, but unwittingly they created a great atmospheric old 1940's maltese falcon atmosphere & improved the film. I love that last bit on the rooftop, so much better with the voice over, it plays beutifully with the vangelis music.
"Sushi - that's what my ex-wife called me..." - if anyone ac by Charlie & Tex	Jul 2nd, 2002 05:36:56 AM
The 1992 "director's cut" of Blade Runner was only called that because it was a useful handle to have on it - it only corrected on or two problems the original cut had. The appeal of Blade Runner is that it is one of the few SF movies where you actually FEEL that you are submerged in a futuristic environment. 10 years ago, we travelled to London just to find a place that was screening the director's cut, and it truly was a fantastic experience, it is one of the few SF movies that has hardly dated, apart from one or two things in it. Sadly, as far as the effects are concerned, if you are a big fan of Blade Runner, then keep away from Lucio Fulci's movie, Rome 2033: The Fighter Centurians, bacause, as entertaining a movie as it is, the effects are based on the same techniques as Blade Runner, however they were produced on a much lower budget, with much less prep time & they were not photographed correctly. Consequently, it becomes patently obvious how these effects were acheived and when you watch Blade Runner again, your mind will automatically pick out the background flaws which were foreground flaws in Fulci's movie. This has been a public service announcement.
Shit! EricAllan is right! It was Moriarty. by eraser_x	Jul 2nd, 2002 06:50:57 AM
Damn. Now Moriarty is getty as loser-ish and pompous as Harry. That's depressing. Moriarty didn't used to be like that.
I knew CONDORMAN would be a classic on opening night by durhay	Jul 2nd, 2002 08:09:33 AM

For more (and current) BR Info by BruceL	Jul 2nd, 2002 08:33:24 AM
Two excellent fansites are www.bladezone.com (tosses out the occasional feature article which you might enjoy) and www.brmovie.com (has tons of stuff including a page with info on the are-they-actually-working-on-t his? SE Blade Runner DVD). Also, anyone who really loves the movie should pick up a book entitled Future Noir: The Making Of Blade Runner by Paul M. Sammon. You can find it anywhere, hell I got mine in a Virgin Megastore which is like the next step up from it being in Circle K's and Blockbusters as far as availability.
Hey OMAC! by RenoNevada2000	Jul 2nd, 2002 09:24:06 AM
I was there too. (Guy in red vintage shirt who asked Hauer that when he finally saw BR if it had lived up to his expectations...) Good coverage. You didn't audio tape it, did you? If so, I'll trade you copies of the photos I took or a dub...
Your walking through the desert when you see a tortoise lying be by skydive	Jul 2nd, 2002 09:45:49 AM
Greetings my American chums, last year on Channel 4 in the UK, there was a good documentary on Bladerunner, in which Scott said that Batty's final words were indeed the product of Rutger. He recounted how well the actor got into the role, and that at the time the words struck a real cord. I think this program would be a usefull addition to any DVD release, it even showed the deleted scene with Decard visiting Holden on life support after being shot.
Hauer Appreciation by FrankCobretti	Jul 2nd, 2002 11:16:14 AM
Hauer was brilliant in Soldier of Orange, BR, & The Hitcher. He was quite good in Ladyhawke and NightHawks. Why isn't this guy in better movies today? Cobra out.
just saw all of BLADE RUNNER for the 1st time by brewsky	Jul 2nd, 2002 11:23:16 AM
I frequent this site, because I like the recent news and the community. Well, it seems that a lot of individuals here talk favorably about the movie BLADERUNNER. I had never seen it and was curious as to what would cause such a cult following. The final decision to rent the movie came Friday night after I ventured to my local music store and bought a DENON receiver and hooked it up to my BOSE and AR speakers. I then decided to break from VHS and buy a DVD player. Then came the dilemma. What could possibly be worthy of playing in this new kickass system? It had to be something that could truly take the virgin sound system and pimp slap it, donkey punch it, dirty sanchez it, and make it say "give me more, sir". Well, I remembered this site and immediately raced to my local Hollywood Video rental franchise and rented both this movie and the FIGHT CLUB (another movie I had never seen). I was ecstatic. I hadn't been this excited since my first blowjob from this red-headed chick that looked like a cross between Julia Roberts and the hot cartoon chick from Master's of the Universe. Well, I got home and rested perfectly between the speakers to get the whole effect of movie theater sound. BLADERUNNER started and it started well. Then, something amazing happened...I fell asleep!! I woke up the following day and tried to watch it again...again I drifted to sleep. Finally, last night I watched the whole movie and realized this movie was worthless. It was so boring. How on Earth could Harrison Ford play such a role in his prime. This movie completely stunk. Then, I remembered that many on this site did not like MINORITY REPORT which was a movie I loved and will own on DVD. To each his own I guess.
by Mush Mouth	Jul 2nd, 2002 11:57:16 AM
Brewsky: You are a f***ing idiot. Thank you.
whatever MUSH MOUTH... by brewsky	Jul 2nd, 2002 12:10:54 PM
I guess I would have to know your definition of idiot. Just because we disagree in movies does not make any one of us an idiot. To me, the movie was boring, contrived and predictable. The acting was terrible save for the 2 minute seen in which the replicant states he is ready to die. Other than that, I felt the movie lacked anything of importance. To me, Minority Report was much, much better and provoked much more thought.
challenging? by brewsky	Jul 2nd, 2002 12:19:33 PM
This movie was pure boredom. I fail to see why one would assume someone is ADD or have some other mental deficit because they found a movie boring and contrived. Maybe this movie touched you in some way and that is fine. However, to assume someone is inferior because they disagree about a movie is about as ill conceived and flawed as Ayn Rand's notion of the rational ethical egoist. I also dislike MTV and spent most of younger life in science and technology. These things require extreme concentration which is something an ADD individual would probably not involve themselves with doing.
I liked the voice-over version better... by JAGUART	Jul 2nd, 2002 12:42:50 PM
I sat through that movie twice in the Spring of 1982, back to back. I loved it. I had never seen anything like it. Watching Harrison Ford depart from his Han Solo persona was a bit of an adjustment, and I think a lot of people felt that way. That movie was panned by the critics back then as well. What do you expect, most of America was emerging from the disco era. They didn't have a damned clue.
Brewsky... Tsk stk. by Hexus	Jul 2nd, 2002 01:44:56 PM
Someone calling themselves "Brewsky" is critiquing Ayn Rand? Think I'll let the name speak for itself... (-1, Attacking Rational Egoism) Teehee.
Hexus by Hexus	Jul 2nd, 2002 01:45:31 PM
(-1, MASSIVE FLAMEBAIT)
Brewsky... by PriestYoungblood	Jul 2nd, 2002 01:49:03 PM
You are kind of a jackass. Yes, people are entitled to different opinions, but this truly may be one of those instances where someone didn't have the patience to appreciate this movie. And 2nd, I know this is a geeky movie and all, but PLEASE. You are not the only person to ever receive a blowjob. So spare us the details. In fact, providing the details, aside from being pointless, sophomoric and petty, makes us this that either you've a) never actually received a real one, or b) that's the only one you've ever had. Stop trying to impress people and just talk about the movie, ok? Ok.
dirty sanchez? by BruceL	Jul 2nd, 2002 02:14:14 PM
You rented one of the first DVDs ever released to test out a state of the art sound system? Pretty informed decision. If you ever buy a kickass plasma tv, make sure to rent CLERKS (another cult fave) to test out the color balance. BTW, as an avid BLADERUNNER fan, I can still understand why someone watching it for the first time 20 years later would be bored and unimpressed with it. However, when curious about movies that have inspired cult followings, sometimes you need to take into consideration things beyond just the actual movie itself.
Channel 4 documentary by Roosterbooster	Jul 2nd, 2002 02:52:06 PM
In the same programme Skydive mentioned, Ridley Scott came out and said point-blank that yes, Deckard is a replicant. I hope that doesn't make it onto the DVD. Does anyone else feel this destroys the carefully ambiguous nature of the character? I thought Deckard was just a severely damaged and de-humanised man who had become less capable of emotion than the androids he hunted. If you haven't read the Philip K. Dick novel you should really hunt it out as it gives so much background information, eg everyone left on Earth is second-rate or deficient in some way, all the "normal" people have left for the colonies. Incidentally, the fire-belching towers in the opening sequence were inspired by the coke-works here in my home town of Hebburn in post-industrial North-East England, the tower of flame was visible for many miles around at night and Scott was from South Shields just down the road. The place is a fucking dump but I'm glad it inspired something beautiful.
bravo on a great persona by hecubus	Jul 2nd, 2002 02:59:59 PM
assuming you are not serious (shudder). I would have gone with MULLETS4EVER or CAMAROS_RULE!
darn enter key jumping in the way by hecubus	Jul 2nd, 2002 03:01:16 PM
.. as a userid though.
Ebert gave Blade Runner a big thumbs down by Hawq	Jul 2nd, 2002 03:11:12 PM
I stopped listening to Roger Ebert when I was 15. He gave Blade Runner a thumbs down, claiming it had no plot, and was basically eye candy. Recently, he claimed Fellowship of the Ring would have been better if it had been made by the Hollywood that did The Wizard of Oz. I don't need to say anything else about his credentials. Blade Runner is probably my favorite movie of all time... I can't wait for the SE DVD.
Bladebummer was over rated by Wee Willie	Jul 2nd, 2002 03:29:00 PM
It's all dark and rainy and all the characters are all depressed and bummed out. Those robots are such a downer because they only have four years to live. And why is it always night? And the rain, God, it rains through the whole movie, which takes place in Los Angeles, so it's totally fake. And that part at the end, what a bummer, the Ruter Howser guy just dies in the rain. And Indy was so deadpan in that show. And as if those snakes were robots. no way could you make a robot snake so convincing you'd need to see a Turkish guy with an electron microscope to find out if it's real. And Darryl Hannah was wierd, with her face all painted. And what's with the guy with the midgets and teddy bears in his apartment? IN CASE ANYONE HASN"T CLUED IN I'M BEING SARCASTIC!BLADERUNNER ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Philip Stone & Joe Turkel by Carson Dyle	Jul 2nd, 2002 03:31:43 PM
Philip Stone appeared in "A Clockwork Orange", "Barry Lyndon" and "The Shining." He did NOT have a role in 2001. Joe Turkel appeared in "The Killing", "Paths of Glory", and "The Shining".
"Blade Runner" is the real deal by Carson Dyle	Jul 2nd, 2002 03:48:12 PM
In 1982,
Phillip K Dick by Jango Matt	Jul 2nd, 2002 03:53:37 PM
Funny this story should show up today, being that i'm going to see Minority Report tonight-both based on Phillip K Dick stories. Can't wait to see it, first time I get to see Colin Farrel in action. Here's to hoping that his performance conviences me that he'll be an awesome Bullseye-although he using his real accent(Scottish? Irish?)in the upcoming D/D flick. Oh-and Blade Runner is an AWESOME film, really nailed down the dark, gritty city of the future.
Colin Farrel by Jango Matt	Jul 2nd, 2002 04:03:00 PM
Irish. He was born in Dublin, Ireland. Thank goodness the IMDB is out there to anwser these important questions. While i'm on the subject, i'm gonna change the subject of this post a bit and ask a stupid question that will probably get me railed agaisnt' for my ignorance-RING..why all the excitment around this project? Rick Baker is doing the makeup, which rocks, but other than that I can't find anything else on it....is it based on a foreign film? I'm alwasy excited about good horror films coming out, but havent' heard much about this one, other than the occasional blurp on AICN and CHUD..maybe I should start reading Fangoria again.
hey Hexus by brewsky	Jul 2nd, 2002 04:29:09 PM
Brewsky is in relation to my last name...not necessarily any form of alcohol. Also, Rand's notion does not account for mutualistic societies being more apt to stronger evolutionary fitness than one based on individualistic societies. Basically, Rand's belief is that everyone is in it for themselves and that not doing so will guarantee failure. However, nature has discredited this notion over and over. In the end, only one conclusion can be drawn. BLADERUNNER sucked donkey :)
Brewsky - by PriestYoungblood	Jul 2nd, 2002 04:36:07 PM
You DO know that you're coming off like a pretentious ass, right? I mean, you're doing it on purpose? Not just so we'll think you're cool and smart? Please tell me I'm right. Philosphical deconstruction of the works of Ayn Rand in an AICN talkback will never be perceived as anything other than pretentious bullshit. Save it for your Philosophy 101 class, my friend. Those that have read it already came up with your oh-so-deep comclusions. Those that haven't read it, don't care. This is about Blade Runner. A movie. Try to keep up, ok?
priestyoungblood by brewsky	Jul 2nd, 2002 04:36:34 PM
I do apologize for being sophomoric. I was attempting to write my review in a fashion that mimics the way Harry does. I thought it was a pretty good mirror of the way he writes. As for the blowjobs, I have had more than my fair share but I should have digressed as that insults every lady that I have been with. For that, I am ashamed. I apologize and realize that my approach was not the best, but the movie still was a complete bore.
Robots?! Androids?! REPLICANTS!! by ZaphodBB	Jul 2nd, 2002 05:05:21 PM
Why does everyone keep calling the Replicants robots? or androids? Am I the only one who recognizes them for what they are? ... genetic constructions made of flesh & blood! Even Roy Batty says "we're not computers Sebastian ... we're physical". This means (to me anyway) that they are the product of years of genetic code research and restructering. Also, Roy later talks to Tyrell about recombinative DNA and such ... clear signs of gene splicing & cloning technology. Why can't people get their one-dimensional brains in gear and let go of these "buck rogers" robot notions.
BR-ING by TomVee	Jul 2nd, 2002 05:19:13 PM
Hey Brewsky! Shut the fuck up. Enough already! Grow up! Meanwhile, on to BLADE RUNNER. I watched it again the same day I saw MR, which was decidedly inferior to BR. I can imagine BR was a disaster in its time. There had never been a movie like it. And it is flawed in some ways. That flat narration, for instance. I understand what the narration was supposed to accomplish, but I prefer the film without it. I have owned a couple of VHS copies of this movie. I do not recall anything to indicate Deckard is a replicant. He is simply burned out. Anyhow, BR looks better and better as the years ago by. It is not a masterpiece but it is a cult classic. There's a big difference between the two. As for Hauer, it's too bad how far his star has fallen. Besides the movies mentioned in this talkback, he was a howl as the blind swordsman in 1989's BLIND FURY, which I assume is a takeoff on the Japanese series. BR shares something with Carpenter's remake of THE THING. There was no way to tell at the time that the movie would prove durable and get better with age. I hated THE THING on its release. I wasn't overly fond of BR at first, for that matter. Both have grown on me. I never go a year without watching both of these cult favorites. The bleak but oddly hopeful ending of THE THING alone is worth the price of admission. And both movies have a lot to say about alienation and de-humanization -- if there is such a word.
TomVee by brewsky	Jul 2nd, 2002 05:27:16 PM
Your a jackass who masterbates in his own fesse
by brewsky	Jul 2nd, 2002 05:29:22 PM
oops...feces
Brewsky by PriestYoungblood	Jul 2nd, 2002 05:36:11 PM
oops - you're (not your). Dope. OK, I'm done for the day kids. See ya tomorrow.
Mr. brewsky, what exactly are you trying to accomplish? by Aquafresh	Jul 2nd, 2002 06:01:03 PM
Do you really think that all the Blade Runner fans on this thread are just going to concede to your opinion that it sucks? "Oh, Blade Runner was once my favorite sci fi film, but then this guy named 'brewsky' showed me the error of my ways, and now I realize that it is boring garbage." I just don't get it. You are entitlted to your moronic opinion, so say your piece and shut up. Otherwise, you are just picking a fight and deserve all the flack you receive. Oh, & by the way, the fact that you have read Ayn Rand does not prove that you are intelligent, it just proves that you are a collegiate jerkoff. I think your time would be better served by masturbating over that one blowjob you allegedly received.
Yeah, BR is slow. by Christopher3	Jul 2nd, 2002 06:16:23 PM
All of Ridley's films are a little draggy. So what? Not everything with Ford has to be paced like "Raider" or "The Fugitive." BR's still a great movie; unlike most, it's gotten better with age.
fluffygreycat (btw...which is a great name) by brewsky	Jul 2nd, 2002 06:27:17 PM
The success of society can be measured. There are variables that can be used to accurately assess how long or well a society will survive. By associating these variables (or attributes) in a fashion to accurately assess a society would by definition make a society an entity. Afterall, isn't an entity something with boundaries...something that can be contrasted by its attributes. By changing one attribute while keeping all other attributes somewhat similar across societies, you can measure the impact (the benefit or harm) that one changed attribute has on a society. A benefit would be defined as a relative increase in the quality/quantity of that societies life when compared to the other societies. A harm would be considered a relative decrease. So a society can demonstrably experience a benefit or harm. Also take notice that i never stated or implied in my logic that a benefit or harm experienced by a society is the same as that experienced by an individual. I do contend that the benefits and harms experienced by individuals does positively correlate to the benefits and harms of a society. If the majority of individuals in a society died, the society is likely lost. So by taking into account the actions of individuals, you can accurately assess and demonstrate what benefits and harms will happen to that society. My premise is that those individuals who help one another without always regarding that help as a means to an end foster a society that has shown to have more benefits (longer quality and quantity of life) than those societies that are simply metheistic. Rand always thought the mutualistc observances in nature were the result of someone after something they wanted. I don't buy that. Would you deny your grandmother the last hamburger in the McDonald's bag if you knew no consequences or benefits would come about if you told her no. In short, a society is an entity that does experience benefits and harms which are closely related to the benefits and harms of the people within the society. By calling these societal benefits non-existence nonentities, you basically disregard science and math. My premise also assumes that value is not agent relative. Value is relative to a multiple of agents.
brewsky by Hexus	Jul 2nd, 2002 06:48:08 PM
Fair enough about the name thing... Um, but your words prove one thing and one thing only... You haven't read that much Rand. A. There's a big difference between a group of individuals who choose to work together, and a "Nation of people" FORCED to work together. She was talking about collectivism. And she was right. I would rather work with or fight beside people whom I CHOOSE to work or fight beside with, than to be told it was my DUTY to do so. And actually, ALL of the major benefits "Human Society" has gained have come primaraly from the works of independant individuals. (Folding up soapbox and shoving into pocket.) Thank you.
Backing off. by Hexus	Jul 2nd, 2002 07:21:48 PM
FluffyGreyCat Appears to be able to handle him/herself against the collectivist hoard of Brewsky. I will stand by and enjoy the show. And Blade Runner, did, indeed, rock. FluffyGreyCat (+1, Objectivist friendly)
Agree with Carson Dyle, Roosterbooster, and TomVee by Old Guy	Jul 2nd, 2002 08:21:58 PM
Anybody still reading this talkback? Being a really really old geek, I saw BR when it first came out in '82. Just out of college, had no air conditioning in my apartment -- I was in desperate need of cool that summer! I musta seen that movie about 18 times (hey, if I was gonna spring for air conditioning in a theater, at least make it a movie I like, I thought) What I liked about the movie were the themes mentioned by the likes of Carson Dyle, Roosterbooster, and TomVee -- the questions about dehumanization, and what exactly is it that makes someone human? Is it an accident of biology, or is it how you feel about life? The movie also had some interesting thoughts about the nature of God and ethics -- now that man can create life, is he a god? (I always thought this accounts for all the Christ imagery in the movie -- the nails through the hand, the dove/soul flying away when Batty dies, Batty kissing Tyrell Judas-like before killing -- i.e. betraying -- him.) In other words, I liked it for the theme. Without it, it's nothing but an empty stylistic exercise -- a pretty one, but still empty. ______________ And that's why I think R Scott is off his rocker to make the Deckard character a replicant -- do that, and the movie devolves into another silly science fiction flick. "OOOOOH, I'll make Deckard a replicant too!! Thats SOOO cool!" thought Mr Scott, thoroughly trashing the movie's point. Cause to me, a burned out, mechanical human is no more superior than a machine with strivings of humanity. And that point, and the movie pursuing it, is what makes the movie a cult classic. ______________ On a slightly off topic moment, anybody besides me ever suspect that the god-awful voiceover was a silly joke between Ford and Scott that went wrong? One of those "isn't this a hoot -- oh, I guess it isn't really" moments. Or maybe they thought it would make the hollywood suits reconsider putting the dialogue in the movie. Whatever, I wish the dialogue existed done without the horrible flat voice reading of it.
Saw 'Blade Runner' when I was ten... by Billy Talent	Jul 2nd, 2002 08:42:19 PM
Loved it right away. One of my first 'Restricted' movies, following 'Excalibur' and 'Quest for Fire'. Bought three different versions of the Marvel comic (a superspecial, two singles, and a paperback)and went right on loving it. In recent years I've only watched the director's cut, but I think I'll check out the original again tonight. I do think that 'Minority Report' compares favorably with it, but 'BR' is one of the greatest and most visionary of films, and undoubtedly Scott's best. It's funny, I was watching 'Dragonslayer' the other night, and it occured to me that, in the early post-'Star Wars' era of expensive messes like 'The Black Hole', 'Star Trek TMP' and 'Saturn 3', Scott, Spielberg and Lucas were the only directors working who could really pull that sort of thing off. And today, in a latter post-'Star Wars' era of expensive messes - well, 'Gladiator', 'Black Hawk Down', 'A.I.' and 'Minority Report' are the only successful grand scale films I've seen in a long time.
DRONE by TomVee	Jul 2nd, 2002 09:16:50 PM
I think Scott had Ford record the voiceover in a monotone to show how truly desensitized Deckard had become. He is in a virtual fugue state. Unfortunately, the narration (which sounds muddy besides) brings down the movie. Maybe Scott thought a narrative was needed to explain things. After all, how many movies like this had ever been made? The answer is none. But that also backfired, as we don't need anyone explaining this movie to us. Imagine if Kubrick had done this with 2001! The trick there is to read Clarke's novelization, especially since Kubrick declined to show the StarChild, upon its positioning above Earth, blowing up defense missiles. In the movie, it simply stares wide-eyed at our planet. In the novelization, it is clear the StarChild is there to "protect" us from ourselves. Kubrick also declined to show his aliens; they are in the novel. Back to Scott. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't Scott own up to screwing up LEGEND? He has admitted he caved in to audience reaction and changed things just enough to ruin the film. Apparently he has recently reworked the film, and to very positive effect from what I have read. I think I saw that new version on DVD in Wal-Mart recently. Interestngly, my latest copy of BLADE RUNNER has the narration but does not show the couple driving away at the end. It simply shows a panoramic shot of some mountains. No car -- or dove -- in sight.
Wrong la sith, plus "Who is John Galt?" and "Howard Roark" rules by Uncapie	Jul 2nd, 2002 09:24:45 PM
No need to piss all over Mr. Turkel the way you do. Paul Sammon forgot to mention that Mr. Turkel has a degenerative eye disease(Hence the coke bottle glasses he wears.) He can barely read a newspaper up close, let alone a script. He's also close to eighty years old. I think he's earned his respect as an actor. Considering the wide body of work he's done, the classic films he's been in that will be remembered for all time and the directors he's worked with, I'd say you should be doing the fart sucking. As for those who put down Ayn Rand's work, well, there's always an "Ellsworth Toohey" in the crowd.
Re: TomVee and "Drone" by Old Guy	Jul 2nd, 2002 10:42:57 PM
Yeah, I think they were sort of exploring that desensitized feeling in the voiceover, but if that's so, why doesn't Deckard talk like that in scenes throughout the movie? Plus, I read (somewhere) that Scott put the voiceover in under protest -- the suits thought movie needed it to make sense. (That's why the original VHS directors cut was missing it.) So I always thought the cliched noir sound was an attempt to sabotage it. BTW, what edition do you have with dialogue and no happy sunny day ending? Is it the DVD version? My antique VHS version-directors cut has no dialogue, no happy ending.
Blade Runner = lucky masterpiece by Carson Dyle	Jul 2nd, 2002 10:56:40 PM
Right on Old Guy: Ridley Scott is a great visual stylist, but he's never really understood the themes put forth on Philip K. Dick's book. Still -- perhaps by accident -- he made a wonderful film. To paraphrase Stephen King (commenting on Kubrick's then still-in-production adaptation of "The Shining"): "I don't give a damn what a film director thinks... I only care about what he sees." For the record, the V.O. narration tacked on to Blade Runner's theatrical release was penned by producer Budd Yorkin after he (with the studio's backing) fired Ridley Scott -- this being just prior to the film's release. Harrison Ford has gone on record as saying he detested having to record the narration, and claims he went out of his was to deliver as flat and uninspired a reading as he could possibly muster (which is indeed very flat and uninspired). The "Deckard is a replicant too" bullshit is just that. If the hero is a robot, it renders the whole movie pointless. All movies must, at the end of the day, be about human beings and the problems they face... not the problems of doleful, whiney, love sick androids. Honestly, if Blade Runner wasn't a classic, we wouldn't still be discussing it.
Deckard is a ... by FrankCobretti	Jul 2nd, 2002 11:14:50 PM
Well, it depends whom you ask. I once spoke with Harrison Ford (nice, articulate guy, btw), and he said that Scott thought Decker was a replicant and he (Ford) thought Decker was human. Soo, Scott directed it thinking, "replicant," Ford played it thinking, "human," and together they created a terrific picture that geeks like us still talk (or type, as the case may be) about today. Cobra out.
Re: Lucky Masterpiece by Old Guy	Jul 2nd, 2002 11:51:32 PM
I also heard that one reason the script is as complex as it is is this: PK Dick was actively involved in the writing of it. I seem to remember him saying the original screenplay was absolute dreck, and they made something "somewhat interesting" from it. If so, it explains why this is possibly the best adaptation of any of Dick's novels on film (I actually think it superior to the novel!) ____________ As for R Scott, yeah, the man has no brain to speak of -- Legend is the best proof for that argument! He's just an eye -- but man, what an eye!
I can't dig this flick. I just can't by Tall_Boy	Jul 2nd, 2002 11:54:53 PM
sure the film looks pretty. But, go ahead and lynch me, I don't care, I find the flick dull. There I said it. it bores me. shrug
fantasic film, BUT... it's not for everyone, i admit. by Nexus-6	Jul 3rd, 2002 12:34:31 AM
i saw this and "brazil" in the same night, for the first time, when i was 16(24 now). amazing shit. changed my love of film forever. it's scary that "brazil" is beginning to come true in the states, a police state is in it's beginning stages("minority report", among others, shows this loss of freedom). oh yeah, "blade runner". slow, yes. but also incredibly beautiful. effects that still have yet to age, amazing stuff, CGI is only now catching up. amazing performances, great dialogue("if only you could see what i have seen with your eyes", for example) and a solid story. some director with some talent give rutger a job, he deserves it.
Clarification by BigTed	Jul 3rd, 2002 06:53:28 AM
Ford and Scott both didn't want the narration to be in the film, but the suits did because of general viewer stupidity. So Ford purposefully did the most monotone and poor jobs he thought he could do for the voiceover, thinking that the suits would then reject it and allow Ridley's version to go ahead unchallenged. Needless to say, they were a little too stupid for it to work. Personally I find the director's cut far superior, but both versions are worthy of being called classics. And as for the movies have to be about humans and the problems they face thing, that is a crock of shit. Not only that, but the film wasn't really about Decker's dehumanization in comparison to the replicants, it was simply a picture of the society he lived in, shown through his thoughts and actions. Or any other bullshit you wanna speel that it COULD be about, you know what I mean? Impersonation of Brewsky: "I dislike this film, and I am fully entitled to my opinion... Hey! I read Ayn Rand! Look at me, everybody! Bow before my mighty intellect that can crush yours with but a scant reference to society personification! Did you hear that?! Personification! Look at how long that word is, I am a genius! Hey, I got a BJ once, worship me as your God!"
An argument for limited VO by Damitol	Jul 3rd, 2002 11:43:15 AM
I am really looking forward to the new final cut of the film. I've loved BR since the first time I saw it, but can understand how someone weened on MTV-edit style action films would find themselves confused, bored and in the end, scratching their heads wondering why so many would call this a good movie, let alone a classic. I think one of the benefits most lovers of BR had that newer viewers do not is that we got to hear the VO first. Love it or hate it now, as we watch the Director's Cut (in name at least) today, we know what language Gaff is speaking and we know what a skinjob is because of the VO all those years ago. Yes - some of the VO was stupid and pointless - like the "sushi" quote somewhere above - but other VOs cleared up little questions allowing us to enjoy the film even more. And - some of the VO dialog was wonderful: "They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper. That was my profession. Ex-cop, ex-bladerunner, ex-killer." That's a great line that only works in VO. The film noir technique and Ford's deadpan delivery of it (regardless of his true motivation) helped define his character. I remember reading an interview many months ago with the guy who does most of Scott's DVDs (Charles Delazurka - or something like that - I think) and remember he said that the VO was not completely hated in Scott's camp suggesting that it could be back in some form. Here's hoping that Scott decides to use the VO sparingly and only when it makes sense to do so - especially if he has access to alternate takes or previously unused VO dialog. In the same or at least a similar interview, he was also excited to report that even though the original unicorn dream footage was lost, they had found some usable test footage from the original shoot much better than whatever was used for the DVD version. So - even though I doubt the definitive version will come out and say "Dekard was a replicant" - the clues will be there for anyone paying attention.
I just couldn't stay away from this talkback.... by Zubalove	Jul 3rd, 2002 11:45:20 AM
I caught this flick again a few months ago. While I watched the scene where Deckard chases the dancer with the snake through the streets, a detail of the film dawned on me which I'm almost ashamed to admit I didn't get right away. Deckard is a cold blooded killer in this film. I mean, he says it right of the bat in the VO and you kinda get it from the dialog, but when I paid attention to the look of horror on that girl's face as Deckerd stalked her on a crowded city street with no one around that would even want to help her.... I don't know. The film just became even more haunting and thought provoking. I watch the movie with a lot more sympathy for Batty's crew than before, and a little greater disdain for Deckerd. As for Deckerd being a replicant. Sure. I'll buy it. Supposedly, the Unicorn dream and Gaff's little paper Unicorn at the end of the film indicates that Deckerd has Gaff's memories. Didn't know if any of you knew that.
IS THIS A JOKE?: by ScreamingPenis	Jul 3rd, 2002 04:12:54 PM
Is this Turkel evoking self-importance or what? or is it just a joke? i've never read in any place that Tyrell 'might' be a replicant. that is ridiculous. self-importance again for Hauer for suggesting that the movie should end with his death. the ending with Deckard and Rachel makes the story much more multi-dimensional than a simple Batty death story. another layer of existentialism is revealed in that the misery that captures Deckard and his relationship with Batty also captures his realtioship with Rachel.
Soldier of Orange 2 by Boondock Saints	Jul 3rd, 2002 06:35:18 PM
HI, i'm from Holland, and lately there is a lot of talking in the media here about Soldier of Orange 2. (Yes, a bloody sequel) Maybe a comeback 4 Rutger?
I hope Ridley makes a new version with all the best elements by Hawq	Jul 3rd, 2002 07:04:05 PM
TomVee- You should check out the new cut of LEGEND for yourself- I thought it would be much better too, especially after reading some of the reviews, but... it's really not at all superior to the "American" version. I think there are some aspects of each one that are better than the other, but in the end it's a matter of taste- and the new version is a bit too sappy and drags in a lot of places for me. There are also a bunch of times when certain supporting noises or dramatic music are just plain missing in the new version, making it lose some of it's impact. The new one does have many good things going for it, too. Whatever anyone's opinion is, it's an interesting study of two very different cuts of the same film. Students of film could write a nice little paper on it. I'm really glad they included both versions in the newly released DVD. ====== Let's hope Ridley does an awesome job of re-mastering Blade Runner. They definitely have quite a few glaring continuity errors to fix(such as the missing replicant, the horrible Zhora stunt double & the snake guy dialogue dubbing)- but overall, I hope it remains 99.9% the same as before.
NO BLADE OF GRASS by TomVee	Jul 3rd, 2002 08:29:17 PM
To OLD GUY, who I suspect I am older than: My most recent copy of BR is a VHS tape with a different cover than my old, now long-gone VHS copy. The cover as I recall (I am at work, natch) has several scenes from the movie running down the front of the box. This version has narration and ends with an overhead shot of mountaiuns and forests with the sun settiung or rising. I forget which. But according to many folks, there is a version that shows Deckard and his fuckbunny driving away into the mountains. My version has no road or car visible. But it is a happy ending one way or the other. I kind of like the ending where they head for the elevator and we are not sure they are going to make it after all. I seem to recall an ending like that years ago, or maybe it's my wishful thinking that the happy ending could be in doubt. I am pretty sure both versions I have had plus the TV version indicate Sean Young has been spared the four-year lifespan. But I am not even sure of that. I think I like the idea that she will die soon and they will have only a little time together. So much more bittersweet, even if they do successfuly evade the shock troops presumably waiting outside. I wish I'd seen the damned thing in the movies. This is almost as bad as CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, of which I think I saw three versions, two in the movies and the third on TV. Yikes!!!!
Ive often wondered how cool a sequel to blade runner made with m by TheMatarife	Jul 3rd, 2002 11:51:45 PM
Some of the visuals would be awe inspiring. Some of the coolest scenes in the movie are when the camera is just panning across LA, or when someone is flying in a spinner.
The replicants were human clones by TheMatarife	Jul 5th, 2002 01:53:12 AM
Genetically altered. That's why there was blood.
PKD by Norrin Radd	Jul 5th, 2002 05:11:03 PM
Petty, off-topic bickering nearly made me sick. Can we be civilized? Philip K. Dick (author of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? on which Blade Runner was based) often questioned the criteria to be used to determine "humanity." This being the case, it seems clear that Ridley Scott explored the central issue of the novel in both versions (Deckard-as-human vs. Deckard-as-replicant). If Deckard is human (compromised version of film), he turns his back on accepted human mores in his decision to run away with Rachel. If he is a replicant ("Director's Cut"), he turns his back on his artificiality by daring to care for Rachel. Both argue for a more open criterion than just method of creation. This is echoed by Roy's poetic turn just before he expires, a nice bit of filmic symetry. Both endings are IMHO happy. Deckard either finally breaks the wall he has built around his emotions ("human" version) or chooses to spend the remainder of his artificially short lifespan with someone who is in the same predicament, and who he loves (ironically, the "replicant" version of the film). Having read extensively on Philip K. Dick, I'd venture that either version would have pleased and annoyed him in equal measure, as did most things in his world. BTW, has anyone else read the sequel novels by K.W. Jeter? They didn't hold a candle to PKD, but explored some interesting aspects to the human/replicant conflict. Pretentious enough for you?
Rutger Hauer by Mandolorian	Jul 6th, 2002 11:44:43 AM
Rutger Hauer is in my Dennis Quaid category. Both are amazing actors who are always completely watchable in anything. Nighthawks is a great example. The film as a whole was not very good, but every time it's on TV I end up watching it just to hear Hauer spill out his eerie "You're going to a better life" line.
brewsky/ayn rand by frank cotton	Jul 6th, 2002 04:47:41 PM
as a fan of AYN RANDS work, i have to put in my 2 cents. the simple fact that a society endures, or is capable of endurance, is not indicative of the worth of either the society itself, or society in general. america, altho flawed, has accomplished more in 200 years than the rest of the world combined, and this is due, in no small part, to our self-reliant, and independent nature. altruism is a fallacy. socialism is BAD. bladerunner is GOOD. brewsky is just another brainwashed college student.

Talkbacks

BLADE RUNNER Anniversary Screening W/Rutger Hauer and Joe Turkel!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks