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

Ridley Scott Loses His Damn Fool Mind!!

the Pulp Briefcase (or, what would Dick say?) by tensticks	Jul 10th, 2000 07:18:40 AM
Well, first of all, does anyone know if Phillip K. Dick had any thoughts on the subject? His is the only word I would regard as canonical. Certainly the film is a masterpiece in its own right though those dreadful book sequels are better left unmentioned. In any case, what was in the briefcase in PULP FICTION? Forget Quentin's "damned souls" explanation and re-watch REPO MAN....what's in the briefcase? the same thing that's in the trunk of the Chevy Malibu....
What do you mean it's still up for grabs?? by Splinter	Jul 10th, 2000 07:22:00 AM
Ridley Scott is the DIRECTOR, Moriarty. If he says Deckard is a Replicant, then...erm...he IS one mate. Simple as that. Debate over. It's blindingly obvious from the Director's Cut that he was a replicant...I have never met anyone (and I know a fair few BR fans) who doesn't accept that the unicorn motif is definitive proof. Whats your take? I don't mean to antagonise, I'd just be interested in how and WHY you would argue for him NOT being a Replicant!? The film attains a depth and resonance the original version didn't sniff at when this angle is added. Saying it's still up for grabs after Scott's comment is like saying Kevin Spacey WASN'T Keyser Soze...its all very well having a personal take on a film when no definitive answer is given (a la briefcase in Pulp Fiction), but once its given...well, thats it. Just my sixpence.
Yea, the documentaries being shown after the film. by Mad Dog	Jul 10th, 2000 07:23:39 AM
I'm not particularly bothered about Scott admitting it, hell, he wouldn't have felt the need to revisit the film if he didn't want to focus on that particular area and the inclusion of the Unicorn scene basically spells it out for us anyway, why else would it have been added? Film Noir the book focus's on it and it seems only Harrison was strongly against the idea. Makes an excellant read anyway if you get chance. Batty (Wolf), Leon (Tortoise), Pris (Racoon) a whole bunch of previously unexplored depth.
Whats in The Pulp Brief Case *SPOLIER* by Meat Takeshi	Jul 10th, 2000 07:24:15 AM
Its a fucking big torch END SPOILER Yeah seems a weird one old Ridley fessing up this coming Saturday, seems to blow what little mystery was left. Still i'll go watch my original version with my Chandleresque voice over in place.
Relax. It still is a mystery by gsolo	Jul 10th, 2000 07:26:32 AM
Ridley Scott didn't write Blade Runner. Hampton Fancher and David Peoples did, and they had no intention of offering concrete evidence that Deckard was a replicant. Unless Scott does something stupid like insert a new line in the Special Edition that states that he is a replicant, I think we can still make up our own minds. I agree though, there is absolutely no reason to give an answer to the question. Let's just hope the Special Edition is done tastefully. How about some more info on that from your friend?
film as art? by 41672	Jul 10th, 2000 07:37:52 AM
If you accept the notion that film is art, than you must realize that art is open to interpretaion. even from the artist. That's what makes it so cool.
Yup, Garth really fucked me up today.... by NUXX	Jul 10th, 2000 07:38:27 AM
First, the whole Deckard/Replicant thing, and then that rumour about Paul
Re: Pulp Briefcase.... by NUXX	Jul 10th, 2000 07:42:09 AM
Its the first ever issue of Sgt. Rock. Better believe it.......NUXX OUT....
This is hardly news. by cozmicrob	Jul 10th, 2000 07:45:25 AM
If you read Paul Sammon's book "Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner," you'd know that this is not news. In the book, Scott states that Deckard was always intended to be a replicant.
Pulp Fiction briefcase by Jarek	Jul 10th, 2000 07:46:30 AM
What's in it you ask? The answer is simple: a McGuffin! What does that mean? NOTHING, there is really nothing in the briefcase... it is not the contents of the briefcase that is of value in the film, but the briefcase itself... it is a McGuffin, a classic device used in tons of film to propel the plot without actually giving credence to what the item is. It is the same thing that was done in RONIN, and about a dozen classic films. So stop arguing about the contents of the case!! There is no point, even Tarantino himself doesn't know the contents. He never intended to show, or know about the contents. That's what makes it so fucking cool, cause Tarantino was paying homage to classic film techniques.
Is Blade runner all that good?? by McBane	Jul 10th, 2000 07:53:04 AM
I mean it is a master of minimalist film. But excuse me?? Nothing really happens in it? Technically it is good. The actors well.... act. [Almost no finger of doom from Ford] The plot and the issues it handles are also cool. But it could have been so much more IMHO. But then I probably just don't like the slow style. As for this is he or is he not a replicant.... Didi I completely miss that? There are hints but so, SO miniscule, I only really considered it because of the blurb on the back of the directors cut dvd.
Hitchcocks word I believe - macguffin by Mad Dog	Jul 10th, 2000 07:56:00 AM
Deckard (Unicorn), Rachael (Spider), that other bird (snake) and the brainy guy (Owl). Anyway, yea, even though it was inspired by P.K.Dick, the adaption was very loose and even though Peoples and the other fella but the heart and god damn soul into the script, It was without a doubt R.Scotts vision that ended up on the screen and I'm glad that he's putting an end to the argument for Ford being a human, cos it's always been obvious he wasn't. Good end of story.
Heh...Deckard's a Boomer... by Typhoon	Jul 10th, 2000 08:05:00 AM
Konya wa hurricane, baby!
This is GOOD news... by X-Mole	Jul 10th, 2000 08:06:28 AM
Because (A) it was clearly thae case that Deckard was a replicant in the film. No doubt... so no problem he confirms it. Yeah, and like the guy above says, in "Future Noir" the comment is (paraphrasing) "I think in the original cut there was some ambiguity.. in the director's cut, I think it's pretty clear that he is". So nothing is lost. I think it is Moriarty who has lost his damn fool mind. And (B) We are getting a wacking great documentary on the film, which is my favorite film of the 80s. So why ignore this great news (and I'm sure the new footage will turn up in the US at some point) and focus on the fact that something that was obvious is being confirmed? In fact, REconfirmed! Jeez are you a half-empty cup kinda guy. Roll on Saturday!
what's realy in the pulp suitcase by kingpin	Jul 10th, 2000 08:22:49 AM
Ving Rhames soul, that's what. Check out the big bandaid (or whatever) on the back of his neck. According to voodoo rituals, that's where they take out the soul of a damned. No shit, ask Tarrantino, he should know.
As a fellow Brit to Ridley... by otter60	Jul 10th, 2000 08:33:50 AM
... and i think the man is a genius, i don't have a problem with him spilling this fact about my all time favourite movie. It seems to me that one couldn't draw any other conclusion from the evidence in the film. Clues; the missing replicant, the fear on the face of the police captain when he is briefing Deckard on the escaped Nexus 6's (maybe the cap thought this might jog the replicant Blade Runner's memory), and the unicorn dream sequence/origami unicorn in relation to Rachel's implanted childhood memory of a green spider. In addition, both Deckard and Rachel are emotionally similar. I don't get it with Americans on this forum. You praise a movie like The Sixth Sense and are stunned and amazed to find out that Willis' character was a ghost all along. What other ending could there be? It was pretty damn obvious after the second (non) inter-action of Willis and his girlfriend. And the realisation that Deckard is also a replicant shouldn't be hard to bear as there the filmic equivalent of BANNER ADS all the way through the movie.
MAD DOG speaks the truth by Mundane Noodle	Jul 10th, 2000 08:36:01 AM
That Film Noir book Mad Dog is refering to is an excellent source for Bladerunner info...it's crammed with goodies. The news that Scott thinks Deckard is a replicant is nothing new he's always tried to imply it. I do agree that leaving it vague is a classier move though. I am interested in seeing this SPECIAL EDITION if only to see how film fixes the "missing replicant" and to finally see the deleted scene when Deckard visits Holden(the interviewer from the beginning) in the hospital. In that scene Deckard is to confess his issues with retiring the replicants...and Holden counters by comparing retirement to switching off appliances. This should complicate Deckards character. All in all it is an excellent film, it has set the bar for sci-fi visually and mentally. And as far as Dick's feelings on film...read the book.
briefcase by X-Mole	Jul 10th, 2000 08:38:02 AM
1) not even Tarrantino knows, he left it open. 2) Ving has a bandaid at the back of his neck because... wait for it... SPOILER....... he cut himself just before filming. They could've used makeup, but decided a bandaid looked cooler. oh, and Mr White shoots Nice Guy Eddie. Any more? What always bugged me about Bladerunner is that they put Leon through that big test at the beginning.... but yet they have all their pictures on file. Why not just, you know: LOOK AT HIS FACE. cyl.
Of course he's a replicant-read the book, moron! by TheGooch	Jul 10th, 2000 08:46:55 AM
Imbecile! Of course he's a replicant, that is what the original book by Philip K. Dick was about. "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" is what Blade Runner is based on...and in it, the main protagonist is a replicant, as well. Fuckin' moron! The Unicorn dream sequence, which was stupidly cut from the orginal release, is an ode to the book, and thus the main indicator that Deckerd, is in fact a replicant himself. Why don't you people read the fuckin' book before you spout your ridiculously blatherings on a movie that is based on a novel?!?!? Read, it'll expand you mind.
The idea of the briefcase came from "Kiss Me Deadly." by Uncapie	Jul 10th, 2000 08:46:59 AM
"The great whatsit.", as Velma called it. That's where it came from. Also, there's a reference in "Pulp Fiction" in the watch sequence that Chis Walken delivers about a tail gunner named, "Winocki". That was a character from Howard Hawk's, "Air Force" that John Garfield portrayed.
Ridley has been saying this for years. by jetset-jimbo	Jul 10th, 2000 08:56:56 AM
I read an interview with Scott in Empire when the directors cut came out, and he said that Deckard was a replicant then. (And that was, what, six years ago?) However, I think there are serious narrative issues with the Deckard/replicant thing. If Deckard is the sixth replicant, are we to assumethat he doesn't know that he is, or that he is being deliberately duplicitous. So far as I am aware the replicants are created with false memories, they dont have their brains wiped periodically and new memories emplanted - otherwise why the need for the short life span? If this is the case why doesn't Deckard remember being a member of Batty's gang? Why don't Batty, Leon et al recognise him? That said, I appreciate that the Unicorn stuff, and Deckard's temperament, are good indicators that he is a replicant. To my mind the issue is still ambiguous. The script is not does not offer a definitive answer, and if Scott wanted to make Deckards true nature clearer (which he seems pretty clear on now,) then maybe he should have ironed out the plot inconsistencies which indicate that Deckard isnt a replicant. Unfortunately, I think that Scott is indulging in a bit of retrospective self promotion, by making it look like he has the definitive answer to this one. The only way you are gonna get any sort of conclusion to this is if you sat Fancher, Peoples and Scott down in a room together and let them argue it out, because I bet each of them has a slightly different take on the movie.
Why is it that Harrison Ford hates being known for Blade Runner by Houdini25	Jul 10th, 2000 08:58:40 AM
To me it just seems that Ford shrugs off his work in Star Wars and especially in Blade Runner. Now he's doing that horror film which is coming out soon. And what's up with 6 Days and 7 Nights? Granted he should take on different roles but he should be more embarrised (sp?) in his last two films than Blade Runner.
on the 6th replicant by X-Mole	Jul 10th, 2000 09:04:01 AM
this was an error in production. there was originally another character in the gang (another female i believe, but don't quote me on that)... hence 6 replicants to catch. They chopped her out either before filming (in which case it is a script error) or during filming (in which case they had probably already filmed the scene in question, and forgot to dub it). Deckard is clearly NOT the 6th, as he has had time to be a bladerunner and to have quit his job. there's no mention of their being able to implant memories in a mature replicant, so we must assume that that did happen. even the BBC claims the 6th replicant is a clue in their story... it is a mistake, nothing more.
Scott of the Sahara... by oh-Dawg	Jul 10th, 2000 09:12:00 AM
I saw an interview with Scott at the time the special edition was released where he said something like thiss. So this article is old news, I'm afraid.
My point of view by spider-ham	Jul 10th, 2000 09:16:14 AM
I always thought the girl was the missing replicant. The police didn't know about her, all the other replicants fleed to their creator, and we don't know her history. Sure we are told she is a replicant with someone elses memories but that doesn't mean she wasn't a "prisioner that escaped." At lest in her mind. Also, remember when Harrison Ford was cool? Now I almost hate to watch the Indy movies because the man just can't act. Ahh they joys of youth.
The 6th Replicant is....... by Mr Bastardos	Jul 10th, 2000 09:17:04 AM

he's one by ONARA SAN	Jul 10th, 2000 09:20:01 AM
I'd be damn dissapointed if Deckard wasn't a replicant. It's crucial to the whole irony of the film.
The 6th Replicant is....... by Mr Bastardos	Jul 10th, 2000 09:31:36 AM
X-mole is correct. The original script had a character called Mary, who would die of old age shortly before Deckard arrives at the Bradbury building. From her we would learn of the lives of replicants in an off world colony. Rumor has it she was actually cast, but the part was cut before filming. For years afterwards Scots people said the 6th replicant could well be Deckard. I agree the film is more interesting if you don't know for sure. Looking forward to the C4 documentary.
who is Keyzer Soze? by vassilis	Jul 10th, 2000 09:32:31 AM
i can't believe there are people that are sure Keyzer is Verbal Kint! The whole sequence in the end shows us that Verbal was LYING, not that he was Keyzer Soze! Keyzer could have been anybody whose body was not identified after the explosion, and that included Kobayashi, Keaton or even Keaton's delicious wife! As a matter of fact, since Verbal was lying anyway, and we get to see everything from the cop's perspective, possibly NONE of the bloody thing happened as we saw it on screen! It's madness when you think long about it, but there's proof. I've got the english edition of the script and Bryan Singer states clearly that he and the scriptwriter had different opinions on who was Keyzer Soze... maybe we didn't even see him on the movie!
It was in Do Andriods Dream Of Electric Sheep?... by Syd Mead	Jul 10th, 2000 09:37:05 AM
I thought this would be news ! So is this restored edition going to change even more scenes?? Cut out and replace more dialog? Why the fuck bother...make another movie Ridley, don't waste your time. --Syd.
Well, Mark Kermode's doing it.. remember that this is the geek c by X-Mole	Jul 10th, 2000 09:54:20 AM
ON THE EDGE OF BLADE RUNNER 23:10 MARK KERMODE charts how the film Blade Runner came to influence films, television, feature films and define the future. This documentary charts the genesis of what is arguably one of the all time great sci-fi films from Philip K Dick's book to the eventual "Director's Cut" (screened on Channel 4 tonight). On the Edge of Blade Runner features interviews with RIDLEY SCOTT and many of the cast and key people responsible for creating the vision of a humid, sprawling metropolis. Tracing the troubled production the documentary also features previously unseen material and original special effects test footage and finally reveals the answer to the question whether Deckard (HARRISON FORD) is human or replicant - a question that has troubled fans since the film's original release.
Thank you, Vassilis.... by faesforce	Jul 10th, 2000 09:58:50 AM
... The Usual Suspects is ok, but it ain't all that great; I think alot of people were duped into thinking it was. The whole movie is pretty much a lie - the ending totally contradicts everything we just watched - the filmic equivalent to "psyche!" That seems too easy to me. And if the story we're seeing is exactly what verbal is saying to the cops, would he tell them that he shot some guy in a van that they were trying to rip off? I know he has immunity, but he just admitted to murder, for Chrissakes. But I still kinda like the movie. Oh, and I personally think its a mistake for Ridley to claim that definitely,Deckard is a replicant. And I don't think that when they were making this thing, he knew for sure. I think hes just saying it now. Whatever.
Did I Not Make Myself Clear? by Moriarty	Jul 10th, 2000 10:00:54 AM
People... I thought I was clear in the article, but let me state it even more emphatically: I believe that the Director's Cut clearly illustrates that Deckard is a replicant. I do not think there's much room to argue it. However, many fans do. That's why I said that no matter what Scott says, it's still up for grabs. Fans will argue this one forever... it's just one of those films. I think the unicorn dream combined with Gaffe's last scene is a rather elegant way of revealing Deckard's true nature. I know plenty of people who argue it vehemently with me. That's the fun of a film like this, and it seems like Scott's just being a wet blanket. Of course I'm happy there's a new documentary. Of course I'll keep my ear to the ground for more info. This was mainly posted because Harry and I got a hundred e-mails asking us to create a place to TalkBack about it. How about easing back just a little bit on the whole "monkey pile on Moriarty" thing, eh? Have I communicated it clearly enough this time? "Moriarty" out.
ahem by X-Mole	Jul 10th, 2000 10:07:33 AM
"Point is, you don't know, and you shouldn't know. Not for sure."
This is news? by abulafia24	Jul 10th, 2000 10:26:49 AM
This is shocking? I mean, as one previous talkbacker said, Scott says this in Future Noir as well as in an interview he did on the laserdisc. Oh, and the person who said that this movie wasn't Scott's vision: read the aforementioned book. It is a large part his. It's more his than it is Fancher's or Peoples' in many regards, not to disrespect their amazing work on the movie.
Apologies Moriarty... by Splinter	Jul 10th, 2000 10:37:45 AM
'Monkey pile on Moriarty'??!! Interesting....LOL. As I said in my post, I wasn't trying to be antagonistic (I obviously didn't try hard enough!)..I'm not arguing about Deckard's origins...as I (and you) said, the Director's Cut leaves NO DOUBT. This Talkback has been interesting in a number of ways, not least of which is the fact that he is a replicant in the book. This I didn't know...and for those of you who STILL don't think Scott's comment is DEFINITIVE...I think that pretty much bludgeons a nail into it. My quibble was that you said 'its still up for grabs' - I thought you meant that YOU thought it was still up for grabs. Apologies. Of course there are people who will argue until the day they die about this - that is one of the beautiful things about film. My point would be that...well, there is no ammunition left. Dick wrote it, Scott said it...DECKARD IS A SKIN-JOB! LIVE WITH IT! I've just realised that this is developing into a semantical argument; you seem to be upset because Scott committed...it doesn't matter to me whether he committed or not - I always regarded it as a fact. I'm confused now. Again, apologies if I came across like the generally angry Irishman that I am.
Blade Runner book by MagnoliaMan	Jul 10th, 2000 10:41:23 AM
There was a great, comprehensive book on the making of Blade Runner that came out about 5 years ago and, as I recall, Ridley Scott explicitly stated, then, that Deckard is a replicant. There's an interview in the appendix of that book and he says it then so this "official" news is at least 5 years old. Not much of an EXCLUSIVE Harry.
His old new guys Fords version VS Ridleys by Norm3	Jul 10th, 2000 10:48:41 AM
Ford always said he wasn't and shouldn't be, and Ridley always said he was! Whats the big deal, but if Ridley is doing another re-cut of the film it will change everything to favor Ridleys vision more. I still prefer Ford's he not a robot.
Can someone please dumb it down for me? by BraveCapt.	Jul 10th, 2000 10:53:10 AM
I just saw Blade Runner (no voice over version) for the first time last week. Can someone please take the time, here in Talk Back, to answer some questions for me? How does the Unicorn "dream sequence" prove that Dekkard is a replicant? I don't see how it does. If Dekkard was a replicant, does M. Emmett Walsh know it? If so, why does he knowingly hire a replicant time & again to kill replicants? Wouldn't he have Dekkard killed as well? Also, I've heard something regarding the eyes of a replicant, and that Dekkard has the same eyes - please elaborate. And finally, though our dear "Moriarity" may not be a replicant, he certainly does have thin skin. Thanks for your time & assistance.
STILL A MASTERPIECE by JamesPrater	Jul 10th, 2000 10:59:41 AM
Okay, the obvious. Unfortunately Mr. Scott went and took the mystery out of Deckard's(sp?) character confirming many of our own beliefs. Deckard is a Replicant. Is this something that most of us did not realize already? Is this any surprise? Can Mr. Scott have his opinion and share it with us? What stands is that BladeRunner is a stunning work that in mind mind shames Star Wars Episode I (maybe that's not hard.) Ridley Scott showed us breathtaking vistas and worlds, his attention to detail is as much evident as Coruscant is in Episode I and gives George Lucas and ILM a run for their money, and this is before the revolution of computer animation and/or manipulation. Ridley Scott should be applauded for daring to create a film that explored a terrain that was untouched until then. When I think of BladeRuner I hear the hints of the Vangelis score while unknowns walk the desolate and lonely streets of future L.A. Never has there been such a believable future protrayed with honesty and despair, a far different take then Scott's ALIEN a few years before. So in closing I think we should applaud his achievements rather than scrutinize his decision to dispell what we've thought all along anyways. My $0.02 JamesPrater
"Dumbing down"... by mbeemer	Jul 10th, 2000 11:12:49 AM
Okay, if I remember this correctly... In the director's cut, Deckart has a dream at the piano after Rachel has walked out on him. He dreams of a unicorn. By itself, this would prove nothing, but at the end of the film when he leaves his apartment with Rachel to escape, he or she steps on an origami figure left behind by Gant. The figure is of a unicorn. This strongly implies that Gant knew that Deckart was a replicant with an implanted "unicorn" memory, just as Rachel had an implanted "spider" memory.
Great to look at, but YYYAAAWWWNNNN! by OtNife	Jul 10th, 2000 11:21:18 AM
Director's cut or not, I still think the film PLODS along at an umbearably SLOW pace. Maybe it's just me.
Best Dressed Chicken in Town by Dr Alimantado	Jul 10th, 2000 11:21:44 AM
Dekard is not a replicant, Gaff is the missing 6th replicant and stitches that Blade Runner up planting origami evidence, if anyone has studied origami you will be well aware that this evidence is not submitable in a court of law. If you turn the brightness all the way up on your primitive cathode ray tubes in any of Gaffs scenes, you will notice a huge bar code inprinted on the mans ugly scarred head. The dopey Dekard duped into believing he is a skin job legs it with the incredibly dull Rachael and imagines a three week future together until they both pass their sell by dates. Imagine his horror when he discovers the truth having given up his job and spent up to his credit card limit on all that fuel flying over to the hills surrounding the Overlook Hotel. Meanwhile Gaff fills a briefcase full of a mysterious gold glowing origami and plants it in a time machine traveling car that is later discovered and driven by Harry (I'm not accepting a script unless i die before the final reel) Dean Stanton. Harry Dead Stanton flies the car forward about twenty years and parts with it for a supply of elastoplast to Marcellus Wallace. This Maedieval on your ass type character loses the case to a certain Frank Whalley who in turn loses it to Shaft. Shaft, the bad mo fo(hush your mouth), in turn will eventually present the contents of this mysterious case to Anakin Skywalker thus turning him into Darth Vader when he discovers the horrifying truth that Dekkard is a human and all that glitters is not origami.
Give the guy a break. by superninja	Jul 10th, 2000 11:27:01 AM
He's just having a little bit of fun stirring up some controversy. It's obvious from the way in which he divulged the information that this is the case -- he says "He's a replicant" with a GRIN. To get worked up about this seems rather ludicrous to me.
About the whole unicorn motif... by Toe Jam	Jul 10th, 2000 11:31:08 AM
It's been awhile since I last watched "Blade Runner," but I seem to remember that somewhere in the first half or so of the movie, a unicorn does make an appearance. I believe, not 100% sure though, that the replicant designer dude that Pris stays with had a toy unicorn somewhere among his scattered toys. You can only see it for a second, and it's in the background somewhere, but it is there. I'll have to check my DVD to find out the exact spot. I know I may just be stating the obvious, but I haven't seen anyone else post any comments about this. Perhaps not everyone has noticed it? Anyways, this would seem to imply that Deckard himself was given some of the memories of this designer guy, who we already know DID work for the company...maybe he even helped design Deckard?
To: TheGooch by superninja	Jul 10th, 2000 11:40:17 AM
Please don't say things like that. The film, I would say, is only based on the concepts presented in the book. There are whole chunks of the story from DODOEL missing in the film. In fact, some of the characters don't even come across the same -- Rachel, for one. It's Ridley Scott's INTERPRETATION, so nothing is static when the director and screenwriter have the capability to change key plotlines in the translation. I think the film is better than the book, BTW.
Alternate unicorn interpretation. by superninja	Jul 10th, 2000 11:44:33 AM
My young mind couldn't grasp the idea that Decker was a replicant when I first saw the film, so I took it like this-- Rachel WAS the unicorn -- the last of her kind. Then I grew up and figured it out, but that worked for me as a kid. Flame away!
ju foking cacaroch.. by Dash Reindeer	Jul 10th, 2000 11:46:37 AM
WHO CARES, live in the bubble instead of accepting the fact that has been staring you in the face for years. The Unicorn dream. the mass amounts of pictures in Decakards place. Gaff and his origami of a man with a peepee. Moriarty JU STOOPID FOK. The blade runner novel sequal told you straight out that deckard is a replicant. Waste our time with better crap than this. Like the time you got banned from the ranch. That was funny.
Deckard was a pussy by Afro_Dogwhelk	Jul 10th, 2000 11:56:25 AM
OK. I buy that he's a replicant because of the unicorn thing, but why (Don't call me a fucking moron, I haven't seen the film for ages)is Batty much stronger than Harrison Ford at the end? Was Deckard a more realistic replicant or something?
Deckard - a fragile replicant? by Mr M	Jul 10th, 2000 11:56:45 AM
How come Deckard got his ass kicked every time he came up against the other replicants. And if he escaped on the shuttle with them - why didnt they recognise him? How about Willis's boxing title belt in the case
Slashdot discusstion thread. by Asmodeus	Jul 10th, 2000 12:10:53 PM
http://slashdot.org/article.pl ?sid=00/07/09/2058217&mode=nes ted ...there is no spoon... oh, wait.
IM NOT GONA BUY THIS FUNKING MOVIE AGAIN by Stimpson J Cat	Jul 10th, 2000 12:13:14 PM
Inless its in 5.1 surround
Embarrassed by their own movies... by Achilles	Jul 10th, 2000 12:22:14 PM
Whoever it was who mentioned Harrison Ford being ashamed of a lot of his movies for no good reason, I say good call! Ford has a real problem with that. In fact, I would venture to say that the only movies he's done that he loves unreservedly are the Indiana Jones movies. He really does belittle Star Wars and Blade Runner. I dunno, maybe he doesn't like sci fi. He's not quite Alec Guinness in his contempt, but he's getting there...
Mr. M has a point... by SCOTT1458	Jul 10th, 2000 12:38:12 PM
why did Deckard keep getting his ass kicked..even by the bitches? And face it...Phillip K. Dick was a genius,,,well untill he thought the IRS, CIA and everybody else was after him.
Actually, Quinten said ... by CrayolaBoy	Jul 10th, 2000 12:40:25 PM
That the briefcase contains everything you ever desired in life but could never possess. He then followed that by saying that there was a light with a gold filter on it inside. As for the replicant deal, who cares. It's still the same great movie. We all had our own idea's the subject anyway.
Use a bit of logic here... by superninja	Jul 10th, 2000 12:48:36 PM
Decker got his @$$ kicked because he didn't know he was a replicant! Every other replicant in the film DID, except Rachel, and you didn't see her kicking too much butt, did you? It's the limitations built into the human mind. Decker, believing he was human, couldn't utilze his heightened abilities because he never believed he possessed them. Roy Batty is one of the most emotionally realized villains in cinematic history to me. Anyone who isn't moved when he gives his "Tears In the Rain" speech at the end of the film is a callous b@stard! Heheh...I love that movie!
Ford, Scott, and Eyes by WizardX	Jul 10th, 2000 12:50:10 PM
If I recall correctly an interview with Ford awhile back, the reason he doesn't like Blade Runner is that he plays a detective who never does any detecting. (that's a near-quote, but somewhat untrue) As for Scott, he's been saying all along that Deckard was a replicant. And since no one else has discussed this, for the person who asked, here's the "eye thing." You know that weird glow that certain animal's eyes (especially cats) have when you shine a light on them? Almost every replicant in the movie (INCLUDING Deckard) does this at one point or another. (I think those that don't are ones who there is no doubt about, such as Leon) Look at the owl when he first enters Tyrell's office. The glow in the owl's eye is what to look for. And before you ask, I believe Scott said that this is something only the audience can see, that you can't spot a replicant in the movie's reality by looking at their eyes.
What a bunch of pissy children... by thepete	Jul 10th, 2000 12:53:50 PM
JEEZ! This started out as a fun debate but now it's got people hurling insults at each other - what a bunch of CHILDREN! And what's this Moriarty defending himself and another guy from AICN attcking AICN users for their opinions? Gimme a break!! Moriarty, do you feel that your argument is so week you need to spring up and defend it? Why not let it speak for itself? Or join in the debate? Mory, you got so defensive, one can't help but think that you don't have much faith in your own argument. And when someone from the site HOSTING THE ARGUMENT actually discourages users from taking an opposing viewpoint - that borders on Big Brother-ism. (I refer to Riddick who offered up, in his subject, "a nice FUCK YOU from all of us here at AICN.") Gee, I don't share your opinion and you say "FUCK YOU" to me? So now everyone should share YOUR opinion? Isn't that kind of discouraging the healthy debate? Here's a TIP: Don't argue against a PERSON - argue against his POINT. Try smartening up before you open your mouth. Although now I see why you never realized Deckard was a Replicant. Ah well. -pete@thepete.com
Ridley Scott is a liar by Celedhring	Jul 10th, 2000 01:08:39 PM
I saw an interview some years ago when he confessed that he didn't understand a shit of the plot of Blade Runner. Fuck! It is a CONFIRMED FACT that he didn't even read the book before shooting the film! He just read a summary written for him! He's just playing smartass now. Scott knows as much of Deckard's "replicancy" as my beloved grandma.
Original Ending by Oso	Jul 10th, 2000 01:33:55 PM
Hasn't anyone heard of the original ending shot for the film? I'm not sure if it's mentioned in the Film Noir book, but in it, Deckard's hand clenches up in the hallway in the last scene(this is a program built into all rplicants to indicate that they are about to die). This was the final shot fo the film, but test audiences hated it, so they shot the now infamous driving-to-Oregon- happily-ever-after-ending.Mayb e it will be on the new DVD.
Deckard is not a replicant by yt	Jul 10th, 2000 01:40:49 PM
and if I have to dig up the body of Phillip K. Dick and haul out Dan O'Bannon, I will prove it, goddammit! Blade Runner is about compassion, prejudice and life's frailty. It's not about robots chasing each other around. I agree with whoever said Ridley's just trying to conjure up controversy. I love Ridley, but he didn't write Blade Runner.
You all got it wrong... by Fleshworld	Jul 10th, 2000 01:48:11 PM
... regarding the unicorn dream and origami. Both Deckard and Edward James Olmos's character had recently caught a re-release of Scott's flick LEGEND and it left a strong impression on the two of them. Just some shameless cross-promotion from Scott.
A fun little theory for the Pulp Fiction case... by regulator	Jul 10th, 2000 01:51:46 PM
I've always liked the theory that it's the diamonds from Reservoir Dogs.
we are missing the main issue here by ol' painless	Jul 10th, 2000 02:08:53 PM
Replicant 'outing' by Ridley or not, by abusing him people diminish the INCREDIBLE vision he had for Blade Runner. I aint seen nuthin' BEFORE or SINCE like it. The lighting is still beyond anyhting today, the Vangelis score is possible amongst the best ever, the storyline completely avoids SF cliche, the dialogue still rings authentically, and Harrison was never better than he was in this role. In fact, thinking about it reminds me just how good Ford was in the late 70's and early 80's, and why his decline and lack of daring today seems so pointless. From Indiana Jones to Jack Ryan - BAH!
Deckard's wussiness by ThereIsNoSpoon	Jul 10th, 2000 02:31:49 PM
I agree that Deckard's woefully inept inability to retire replicants is still the most convincing argument that he isn't one. The main reason that he would be one is that only a replicant can be fast, strong and smart enough to retire another replicant. This argument is negated by the fact that he survives every encounter with them by sheer, dumb luck. We had the one poster claim that he didn't know he was one, so he didn't have full control over his physical superiority but that would sort of defeat the point of making a replicant into a Blade Runner in the first place, wouldn't it? So here's something to chew on - Was Holden a replicant? What about Bryant? Gaff? By the way that one posting by Dr Alimontado was funny as shit. Hey can anyone confirm this - I've heard an urban legend that USC film school actually has or had an entire semester long class on THIS MOVIE! Is this true? Or maybe it's NYU?
Other clues and the 6th replicant. by Ivan_Mtl	Jul 10th, 2000 03:02:02 PM
I vaguely remember reading that the sixth replicant was a female "domestic" model named Mary, whose part was subsequently written out(the fifth was mentioned as having been fried during the escape attempt). Some other additional clues that point to Deckard being a replicant include the fact that he never answered Rachel when she asked him whether he had ever undergone a Voight-Kampff test himself. When he asks Tyrell how she could not know, the irony is that HE doesn't know either. Also, Deckard muses on the fact that replicants (both Rachel and Leon)seem to need photographs to give them a sense of past. When we see Deckard's piano, there are numerous photographs upon it. At the end of the film, Gaff congratulates Deckard for having done a "man's job!" This is along with the unicorn origami tells us that Gaff knows the truth. In fact, my theory is that EVERYONE in the film is a replicant. I think that the pollution level probably rendered all humans sterile and this was the only way to ensure the survival of the 'human' race. The logical sequel would be the introduction of a Nexus 7 (Rachel?) that would have a "natural" life span, and the ability to procreate. I would love to see Deckard trying to protect her from other Blade Runners seeking her destruction and discover this all for himself. Just an idea. :)
reply to vassilis and jetset jimbo by Dragonfire	Jul 10th, 2000 03:12:49 PM
Him lying wasnt the only clue that he was Kaizer. That henchmen who met them when they were playing pool who served Kaizer, you see spacey getting into his car at the end, therefore spacey is Kaizer maybe the replicants and all of them did recognize deckard, but dint see any point in trying to tell him. maybe thats why the guy saved deckard at the end, cause he was his fellow or something like that
Thereisnospoon: There is INSTINCT, and there is AWARENESS by superninja	Jul 10th, 2000 03:18:34 PM
That's like saying Batty would've been running around killing people if he hadn't know his fate! Batty reacted to the world so physically because he knew he'd been cheated and he wanted everyone to pay. Decker, on the other hand, knows nothing of this: that's why he's a cop hunting skin jobs. That's why Rachel is a secretary, and not trying to find a way to extend her life. Who better to hunt a skin job than another skin job, right? But it would be far too dangerous to allow Decker to know WHAT he was for fear he would join the other team. Who wouldn't with that kind of revelation? I think Decker would subconsciously identify with the replicants, whether he was aware of it or not. It would be instinctual for him, because certain aspects of their behavior would mirror his own.
deckard did retire replicants by Dragonfire	Jul 10th, 2000 03:19:14 PM
he retired that woman zora or whatever and that other woman both without luck. out of the other two, the one took him by surprise and the other, the main villain, was a superior replicant
Missing the point by All Thumbs	Jul 10th, 2000 03:35:34 PM
The point is that by having Scott admit that Ford's character is a replicant, you miss out on the fun debates. Although, I must admit it has spawned off another debate entirely. Personally, I don't want someone telling me stuff like that, be it books or movies, because I either want to figure it out myself or develop my own interpretation. Like I told someone recently, finding the little touches in a movie (though some little touches are actually very big because of how they alter the whole) is like finding buried treasure. The fun is in the search and the discovery should be your own.
Ridley Scott's opinion... by brokentusk	Jul 10th, 2000 03:45:18 PM
Perhaps, I'm going on a long-shot here, but maybe this was just Ridley Scott's opinion. Yes, Ridley did make the film and maybe the novel reveals it more clearly. Maybe Deckard is meant to be a Replicant. But just because Ridley Scott has made his decision does not mean that nobody else can speculate. Me, personally I feel that Deckard is definitely a Replicant. That is just my opinion.
Only a certain number of people knew when mr. Scott revealed thi by sprocket-bot	Jul 10th, 2000 04:11:42 PM
...then even more when Garth posted it on DH...my god, then Harry revealed it to even MORE by posting it on his site! I think we all get the point, eh?!?! Anyhow, no need to make a mole hill into a mountain, It was VERY VERY obvious that Dekkard was a rep. from the directors cut...I'm a HUGE fan of this film, probably before most of the people my age (or older) gained respect for it, I REALLY don't think it matters what Ridley say's, art IS in the eye of the beholder, no?
I'll have an egg MacGuffin, please... I couldn't resist... by mini maul	Jul 10th, 2000 04:27:57 PM
By the way, just a little something for you about the unicorn... That sequence was actually filmed for the film Legend. And My opinion is that Mr. Philip Dick who wrote Do Andriods Dream of Electric Sheep (aka, Blade Runner) is the ultimate authority of this arguement. Scott's opinion is just that an opinion like yours and mine. P.S. I wanna cool floating car too!
IBLIS and the Usual Suspects Deniers by Anton_Sirius	Jul 10th, 2000 04:35:47 PM
I am going to go rent Legend tonight and watch it back to back with Blade Runner, just to see if the footage matches. That's a truly nutbar theory- Scott 'fixing' the original cut containing footage from another film (for those who haven't heard the story: the aerial shots of the trees at the end of Blade Runner are actually extra footage from the Shining) with footage from another film! But whether it's revisionist or not, the director's cut is flat out better, unlike Star Wars. Now- you sillykins who don't think Verbal Kint was really Keyser Soze. There are about half a dozen other clues scattered throughout the film pointing directly to it. Here's a good one to start with: if Verbal isn't Keyser, where did he pick up the habit of holding cigarettes in an Eastern European manner? Besides which, all films are lies anyway, even documentaries. This was just a particularly well-told one. Go watch Orson Welles' criminally neglected masterpiece F for Fake if you don't believe me.
The greatest trick the devil pulled was convincing the world he by superninja	Jul 10th, 2000 04:56:22 PM
That pretty much says it all to me. Verbal may be Soze. He also could've made the ENTIRE thing up, based on the objects in the cop's office. That's what makes the film so damn fun (besides the interesting characters, story and direction), is that you leave the theatre speculating until the cows come home.
Please Direct All Complaints... by Anton_Sirius	Jul 10th, 2000 05:05:20 PM
...about flying cars to the Avery Brooks TalkBack from a few days ago.
Missing the point ... by ClitSmurf	Jul 10th, 2000 05:20:38 PM
The point of Blade Runner is the question of Deckards humanity: If there is no discernible difference between the executioner and the replicant, by which right can he retire them, that is, if there no longeer exists a difference, why uphold the law! Psychoanalysis could probably account for a persons dream of unicorns and anothers knowledge of this. What makes Blade Runner so interesting is that they are all equally human, there IS no difference! By the way, the 'fact' that the book says Deckard's a replicant is highly problematic, a good deal of artistic license has been taken when making this statement!
No voice-over by Harisson Ford by rEEferHEAD	Jul 10th, 2000 05:29:51 PM
I just want to say that its FUCKED UP THAT THERE IS NO VOICE OVER IN THE DIRECTORS CUT!!!!
The unfortunately named ClitSmurf is right! by Zeno	Jul 10th, 2000 06:05:07 PM
Although the abiguity, (intentional or otherwise) raises the level of this movie to something sublime, thematically, ClitSmurf (oy vey) hit the nail on the head. Deckhard as a human is our proxy for dealing with the issues of: "What is human? If I, Deckhard the human, conduct myself with less humanity than something that is not human (Batty), which of is truly deserves the mantle of humanity? Which of us deserves to exist?" Deckhard as replicant wouldn't necessarily confront these issues in the same way.
Superninja - good point by ThereIsNoSpoon	Jul 10th, 2000 06:14:33 PM
You're right, being a replicant, even without knowing it, would give him an insight into the motivations, actions, and thought processes of his quarry. But none of this changes the fact that once he found them, they all still managed to kick the shit out of him. He got Zhora because just when she had a perfect opportunity to kill him, she ran instead. (I accepted that she spared him for variations of the same reasons Batty spared him at the end.) Leon was ready to gouge his frontal lobes out via his eye sockets and would have if not for Rachel's timely intervention. Batty toyed with him like a cat with a mouse. The only one he really got "fairly" was Pris, the one pleasure model in this band of "Combat models" and members of "Off-world kick-murder squads" (Whatever those are). However, I can accept that, as is all too often the case, corporate technology has pulled ahead of government agencies and that the LAPD's Blade Runner unit is just sorely underbudgetted and in desperate need of updating it's obsolete "Equipment" to catch up to the new, badder ass than ever Nexus-6's. (Deckard is a replicant employee of the LAPD who is obsolete. Is this an equipment issue or a manpower issue?) Perhaps Holden was an even older model - and instead of retiring the Blade Runners, the LAPD just uses them until a superior Replicant wastes them. Why upgrade and sooner than necessary? All that any of this really proves is that both Superninja and I both have seen this movie way too many times.
Oh, and Zeno - by ThereIsNoSpoon	Jul 10th, 2000 06:23:59 PM
You have a good point too, but let's take the philosphical questions to the next level and say "If I have believed I was human all my life and suddenly found out I wasn't, what does it take to define a human?" or "If, for all practical intents and purposes, under all controlled laboratory conditions concievable, if something appears to be human, how can it not be?" A replicant that is biologically identical to humans and psychologically no more abberant than certain other "true" humans is a human right? How about the moral issue of "retiring" a machine you consider to be a malfunctioning object as opposed to a fellow slave with the same hopes, dreams, and survival instinct as yourself, weather you are a "true" human or not? This is why this movie is so cool, because we could throw stuff like this around for ever, and nobody's any more right or wrong than anyone else, and it never stops being fun! And if they could get everyone back and not f*ck it up with too much corporate, non-artistically-driven decision making - wouldn't a sequel be cool?
Thereisnospoon: You're missing my point. by superninja	Jul 10th, 2000 06:39:47 PM
My point is that Decker, not being self-aware, is incapable of reacting AS A REPLICANT! Just like in the Matrix, Neo can't bend the spoon. See the analogy? If Decker KNEW he was a replicant, then his whole mindset would've been different, and he could act accordingly. But just like Rachel, he believes himself to be HUMAN, and therefore from a psychological standpoint, can only REACT as a human. He would have a natural, though subconscious empathy with the replicants, which would aid him in tracking them, but once he got there, as you see in the film, he reacts like a human NOT A REPLICANT. That's my whole point.
Actually right after he said that... by JackBurton	Jul 10th, 2000 06:46:00 PM
He says something like "thats always been my take on it anyway", or somesuch thing...you just wait and see, unless the editors went and cut that bit out. Besides, why shouldn't he have an opinion on whether Deckard was a replicant or not, does it change your view of the film? And if it does then maybe that says more about your own follow the leader sheep mentality than it does about Scott and his perfectly valid right to have and share his own viewpoint. Just a thought.
Well, read the damn book, you damn fools! by 18Buddahs	Jul 10th, 2000 06:48:20 PM
If you read the book, it says right there that Decker's an android. It's not like it's a big mystery. Please, can't you find a decent topic to talk about?
Blade Runner - Unbagged Cat by Pogo	Jul 10th, 2000 07:28:18 PM
Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? Let RS blab that Deckard is a replicant. The more interesting questions are: When does Deckard's clock expire, if at all? Does he know this? What about Sean Young's character - when does her clock expire? Is Gaff a replicant? (He, too, knows about the unicorn, and seems sympatico with Deckard.)
WHAT IS NOT IN THE BRIEFCASE by GFK	Jul 10th, 2000 07:31:58 PM
IN response to kingpin, it is not Rhames soul. The reason Rhames wore a bandaid during production is because he had a scar there and Quentin suggested he ware a band aid. It is nothing in the briefacase, and as stated before is left to let the fans debate it, which is great because it establishes Pulp Fiction as a true Cult Classic.
Deac Speaks... by Deacon	Jul 10th, 2000 07:39:28 PM
harry i put up with alot of shit from you and your stealing from other web sites... but now you rip on the brilliance that is Ridley Scott... harry if ridley scott wants to reveal somehting about his masterpeice then you damn well got nothing to say! if it wasn;'t for him you wouldn't be watching blade runner now would ya! so get down on yer knees(if you can even bend down anymore) and kiss mr. scott's ass for not having you killed for judging his desicion.. deacon has spoken
Superninja - ?!?!? and hey 18 buddhas- by ThereIsNoSpoon	Jul 10th, 2000 07:44:42 PM
OK, I thought we were on the same page but now I'm confused - you're saying the LAPD has replicant operatives that think they are human, but because they really are replicants, they have a subconcious, instinctive intuition which allows them to track the "tresspassing" renegade replicants with far more efficiency than humans. I'm with you so far. But because they don't know they're replicants, they're physical abilities are limited to what is normally considered humanly possible, the same way denizens of the Matrix can't run up walls or bend spoons until they are made aware of their ability to do so. OK, I'm still with you. So upon finding the trespassing replicants, the Blade Runners are promptly knocked off by their fully self aware and thereby physically more formidable prey? Now you lost me. Are you suggesting that perhaps by being replicants, blade runners are disposable? That's actually an intriguing concept - perhaps the events we see in the film is Deckard's first and only case and all prior memories of all prior assignments are implants. Perhaps he was only supposed to lead Gaff and some badass ESWAT guys to the replicants but was himself not expected to survive, hence Gaff's praise "You did a man's job!" Pretty far fetched. But very cool. Like the "SCUDs" from the Rob Schrab comic. Hey 18 Buddha's - Yeah the book says it flat out, but since I'm assuming you read the book, you'll notice that the film is verrrry loosly based on it. Where is Deckard's electric sheep? Pris and Rachel should be the same actress and one that looks 14-16, no? And Deckard's cool as hell gun was supposed to be a laser tube, and the genuis JF Sebastian was in actuality a "chickenhead" correct? The point I'm making is that after being adapted by Fancher and Peoples into a screenplay, and then adapted again into a film by Scott, the story and the universe has taken on a life of it's own beyond what any single creator envisioned. We're just having fun working out the ins and outs of different possibilities and interpretations made on all levels from Dick's initial conception to present viewers thoughts. No one is right or wrong, and ultimately, no one other than us fanboys really care, but it's fun to imagine. Indeed, isn't that the point of works like this, to stimulate the public's imagination? Save the hostility for a forum about something that you feel has been or will be bad, or a poster who violently attacks someone simply for a difference of opinion.
There may be no spoon, but there is a knife, and you used it to by Zeno	Jul 10th, 2000 07:51:28 PM
Good show, Thereisnospoon. You're right, the fact that we can come up with a myriad of different questions is what makes the ambiguity so neat. However, I think a sequel ain't such a great idea. Let Blade Runner stand as it is. The book didn't need a sequel and neither does the movie. And speaking of the book, for those of you who haven't bothered to take the time to read this Talkback, many people have already made the lucid point that the movie is a very liberal interpretaion of the book. The movie stands on its own a separate work. I suggest we take the New Critical approach, and regardless of its creator's intent or source material, judge the movie in and of itself.
And before I can even click the post it button, you've already s by Zeno	Jul 10th, 2000 08:04:16 PM
Thereisnospoon, bad timing on my part. Also, for everyone: beware of the Forced Interpretation. If you have to do too much mental gynastics (explanations) for your interpretation to make sense, that should tell you something.
Pulp Fiction by Taxjockey	Jul 10th, 2000 08:18:54 PM
Maybe the contents of the case cannot be know, but I like to assume that it is some sort of religious artifact, ala the Holy Grail. This adds a nice plot point to the film. There would be no guestion about whether divine intervention protected Jules and Vinnie from the bullets. This also makes Jules decision to give his life over to God all the more plausable. As guarian of the "Grail" he was protected from harm, and can no longer deny the divine presence in the world, and his life. Vince considered the "Grail" no more than a shiney artifact, and never considered it might have paranormal powers.
Old News by Shaft9876	Jul 10th, 2000 08:48:23 PM
The quote I remember reading, and it was a while ago, was something like "I suppose you could say in the original cut of the film, Deckard is not a replicant, and in the Director's Cut, he is". In other words, this was a movie with a huge budget which ran into serious conflicts between the principal parties as to what the essence of the film should be while the clock was ticking and the bills were piling up. The result was a muddled film. To me, watching Blade Runner has always frustrating exercise is in "what could have been". The movie is visually brillaint, the themes are original and thought provoking, and the concept is great, but I keep wishing that it would also be ENTERTAINING, which to me it just isn't, although I think it easily could have and should have been. That opinion has only been re-enforced by Gladiator, which crams in a lot of subtext and style while still managing to draw the audience into the plot. If only Scott had had the experience then to pull off Blade Runner with the same degree of skill, the film would be a flat-out classic, as opposed to a cult/film buff classic.
Not even the director knows for sure... by nothingman	Jul 10th, 2000 09:08:26 PM
I've never (to my knowledge) posted here before, but when I saw this topic, I had to say something. It is my belief that it should STILL be open to debate whether Ford's character was a replicant. See, when you create a work of art- be it a film, a song, or what have you- it takes on a life of its own. A viewer's interpretation of what he or she sees is just as valid as the director's interpretation. Just ask Atom Egoyan, director of one of the best films of the decade, The Sweet Hereafter. On the commentary track on the DVD for that movie, Egoyan (also the writer) says that some people have asked whether Mitchel is flying to his daughter's funeral. This thought never even occured to him when he was making the film, but he said he looks back and can see how that would make sense. And he also said that what each viewer takes away from the film is just as valid as his intentions when making it. When I watch that movie, Mitchell is going to a funeral. This might not have been intended, but that's how I see it. That's what makes the most sense to me. So if you want to believe Ford's character is a replicant, well, you're on the same side as Ridley Scott. But if you walk away from that movie thinking he is human, then that is the reality the movie takes on for you, and it is just as valid. I can understand why people would want Scott to remain vague on the subject, but I just don't think his comment matters. It doesn't mean anything except that that is how Ridley Scott interprets the material.
blade runner blues by 2211	Jul 10th, 2000 09:13:36 PM
hey all, long time reader here, but first time writer. as with many of the above posters i recomend "future noir, the making of blade runner" which answers many of the questions brought up here. a couple of things off the top of my head tho, deckard is bested by the replicants because he has inferior physical abilities. when bryant is briefing deckard on the escape, the screen shots of the replicants have all their manufacturers specs underneath their pictures. these specs vary from replicant to replicant so the possibility is that as deckard is or rather was part of the police force his physical abilities have been limited to those of "normal" humans. the other thing is the unicorn dream. this was not an insert from Legend. but was shot specifically for the purpose it served in the directors cut of blade runner. it was originally in the work print shown to preview audiences, who felt it was too confusing so it was dropped from the original release (much to ridley scotts disgust). compare the 2 unicorns and they are quite different. sorry to be anal about all this but blade runner is one of my all time faves. sweet dreams -xx 2211
I don't get it? by Movie Guy	Jul 10th, 2000 09:18:09 PM
O.k., I've watched the film (Director's Cut) many times and I love it. But, I still can never fully understand this Harrison Ford being a replicant thing? Is there a simple way to explain it to me, the unicorn scene, having to do with the last scene, etc? I'm just a confused person who wants to understand. Please feel free to e-mail me if ya can help. Thanks a lot.
The sixth replicant... by seraphim@gci.net	Jul 10th, 2000 09:54:38 PM
The sixth replicant was obviously the Chinese cop. You know, the one with the beard that picks up Deckard at the beginning, and makes all the paper cranes.
Anton by mini maul	Jul 10th, 2000 10:38:28 PM
I saw RS in an interview some years ago in which he flat out said that the Unicorn shot was directly out of Legend. Many films borrow quick snipits from other films. It would not be suprising at all for RS to use a shot not used in Legend for Blade Runner.
2211..good call by Anduin	Jul 10th, 2000 10:46:28 PM
I agree. NOt all replicants are created equal; for all we know, Deckard could have been a cook or a janitor. So why pick Deckard to reprogram and send after the others? Maybe because he was the first one caught by the LAPD. Why was he the first caught? Maybe because he was dumber than Leon and nowhere as agile as the combat replicants, or even the acrobatic "pleasure" model. But why didn't Zora recognize him? Ok, how bout this...Deckard is the same model of rep as Rachel. "more human than human." Nexus 7 maybe? Abilites and emotional frailties closer to a real human? Deckard could be "on loan" from Terell to the LAPD for two reasons: 1-Terell Co. is legally obligated to help clean up the mess it created with its Nexus 6 rogues, and 2- this is the perfect opportunity to give the new Rep models a test run. Someone mentioned earier that Reps are really engineered clones, and not robots. This never crossed my mind, and I don't know why!! DUH! I used to think BR was a bit flawed cuz I never believed that robotics would get to the point of synthetic humans by 2019. But clones? Maybe.Thats why this film is more poignant now than it was in 1982.
does tarantino dream of plastic sheep? by tensticks	Jul 10th, 2000 10:46:46 PM
well that's true, the title of Dick's novel pretty much settles it doesn't it? oh regarding the PULP briefcase, don't give me that "it's ving rhames sould" shit. yeah tarantino said that a few years back, but I don't buy it. that was just quentin fucking with the fan boys. Yeah, the briefcase was a mcguffin, but I swear to you, quentin is a repo man fan--compare the convenience store mexican standoff scene in that film to the finale of reservoir dogs. If anything really IS in the briefcae, it's the aliens from REPO MAN. QED.
HEY Jimmer Negamanee...! by Bono	Jul 10th, 2000 11:01:51 PM
...That's a good one (the wooden acting style line)!
As if fanboys have a lack of shit to argue about... by MajorY2Kaos	Jul 10th, 2000 11:05:08 PM
I'd think that there would be a sigh of relief and a cheer from the folks who were right over this news. God fanboys are the most cynical bastards.
You wanna know what was in the Pulp fiction briefcase? by TheGinger Twit	Jul 10th, 2000 11:11:06 PM
It was Marcelous wallace's soul - hence the bandade on the back of his neck.
RIDLEY SCOTT IS A REPLICANT!!!!! by VictorC	Jul 10th, 2000 11:31:07 PM

Deckard's a human by CaptBlack	Jul 10th, 2000 11:45:31 PM
He proves he's a human when he gives himself the Voight-Kampf test in the car with Resch. Then when he finds the replicant frog in the kipple he's disappointed that its not real. Androids are only programmed to react to the abuse of animals. The movie never really explains the significance of the animal questions which is all too clear if you READ THE FUCKING BOOK!
Outer Limits: The Man with the Glass Hand by XeroChance	Jul 10th, 2000 11:45:55 PM
I'm sure this isn't news to most of you, but I wanted to mention that alot in Blade Runner was inspired by an episode of The Outer Limits I believe was called The Man With the Glass Hand. It tells the story of a man defending the world against time traveling aliens by storing all of humanity in his glass hand. Ok ok it doesn't sound a whole hell of alot like Blade Runner, but MwtGH takes place in the same building as the final showdown in BR, the aliens look alot like Daryyl Hannah in mime make-up, and at the end the hero learns that he is and android. If you're a Blade Runner fan you owe it to yourself to see this episode of the Outer Limits.
The Sequel Will End The Controversy by Pagan God	Jul 11th, 2000 12:19:22 AM
Anyone forget that it's in development? I forget how involved Scott is or isn't, but it's going to be pretty hard to argue against whatever they say in there, and after Scott made this statement, you can bet that they'll try to answer it one way or another...
soze confirmation + unicorn by vassilis	Jul 11th, 2000 01:31:27 AM
no use beating an old horse to death, but here's what I found on slashdot: I saw a documentary about "The Usual Suspects" in which Chris McQuarrie (the writer) said that he and Bryan Singer (the Director/Producer) both knew who Keyser Soze was, but they disagreed. Gabriel Byrne had a different idea of who Keyser Soze was -- himself! Also, about the unicorn: Ridley said in an interview that he put the Unicorn in as a philosophical symbol, extending the symbolism of his "Legend" movie. This is known as the unicorn argument in philosophy and states: how can you imagine something that never existed (i.e. the Unicorn). Dunno if that helps...
Pulp Fiction by djtrauma	Jul 11th, 2000 02:16:52 AM
One final note on the pulp briefcase: Tim Roth saw what was in the briefcase. In an interview with Empire magazine he said the case contained a battery and a lamp. So there.
Since no one's mentioned Ford's Voice Over's in this pic I will: by Bari Umenema	Jul 11th, 2000 02:39:58 AM
I liked 'em! Flame away you purists you (hey the guy has a stainless steel voice and IMHO his Narration Worked). Flame away you purists you...
Here at the end.... by NUXX	Jul 11th, 2000 03:30:24 AM
I
constant "rehab?" by Flambit	Jul 11th, 2000 06:03:46 AM
i'm not fully sure i understand what this phraze means; it is very vague. How do you "rehab" a film? Are you saying that the film has only been lauded because it has been "rehabilitated" or restored, or what? I don't think this is totally fair to what was a terrific film, even with the lumbering narration, etc...
Don't eat with talkbackers by Tom1234	Jul 11th, 2000 07:57:48 AM
"Hey could you pass the salt?" "Yeah sure Tom." "Ow, why the fuck did you stab me with a fork?" "Isn't that what you asked me to do?" "I asked you to pass the salt you dolt!" "Right, but I reserve the right to co-opt and interpret your efforts at human communication any way I wish, so I interpreted that to mean you wanted to be stabbed." Who was the genius who wrote a forum script without paragraph breaks anyway?
Flambit by Shaft9876	Jul 11th, 2000 08:24:01 AM
Blade Runner bombed when it was initially released, and many, including myself, consider it to be a bit weak in some areas (to put it mildly). Thus the need for "rehab". You have to be able to separate sci-fi/film geek perception from that of the average viewer. I think to some extent Ford was right when he said "a detective who doesn't do any detecting". The plot itself is just plain non-existent, which makes the film dull and laborious, and makes it very hard for the viewer to give a crap what happens to the characters. Nevertheless, the film HAS been recognized as a highly influential visual and design achievement, mostly since the Director's Cut was released (and since advertisers started repeatedly ripping it off in comercials). In other words, it's generally considered more of a "flawed classic" than a "classic".
Don't Eat With Talkbackers Part II: The Quickening by Zeno	Jul 11th, 2000 09:41:57 AM
"Right, but I think we can make a distinction between art, in which subjective interpretation is a key component, and direct communication." "Gee, you're right Tom. Sorry for stabbing you." "S'okay. What do you say we quit with the false analogies and finish our meal?"
Anyone seen the Limited Edition DVD box set? by G'Kar	Jul 11th, 2000 10:39:22 AM
I'm wondering if the disc itself is any different from the previous DVD release -of which I've read mixed reviews. Price aside, if I wanted to buy a copy of the Director's Cut before Ridley Scott tampers with the movie again, which DVD should I get?
he say you buraidarunna... by Metatron	Jul 11th, 2000 11:08:34 AM
I think most people who aren't into science fiction will never have read the interview in which Scott allegedly reveals the truth about Deckard.. a truth that, by the release of the Director's Cut of Blade Runner, was relatively obvious. So, most of us who've seen it, and would care to buy this new DVD are likely to already know the truth, or have seen the evidence and at least make up our own minds whether we believe it or not. For the rest of the public, I'm sure that it's still going to be a new experience. Ridley Scott has done some things which, while visually magnificent were somewhat dramatically shallow or too complicated to seem dramatic at all. By the way, has anyone seen the old BBC TV series he directed, called "The Celts"? If you have I'd love to hear your opinion on that. The coolest film to come along in a long time that ever looked anything like Blade Runner, yet bombed horribly, because a) no one understood it and b) it was hokey and goofy to the point where few people want to admit having seen it, is The Fifth Element. Granted, the film borrows from practically every other film ever made, BUT, it doesn't pretend, like Star Wars, to take itself so seriously, and Mark Stetson was in control of the set design for 5th Element. Stetson was the person who created the "look and feel" of the world of Blade Runner... a cramped, dank metropolis where hi-tech and low-rent worlds collide. Visually, especially on the DVD edition, 5th Element is alive and kicking. The combination of Stetson's design expertise with the out-of-this-world conceptual work of artist Moebius make this film something to look at, even if you feel like holding down the mute button to avoid the goofy dialogue. Nonetheless, I loved the film for its daring, and suggest anyone who liked Blade Runner should check that film out.
Philip K. Dick by flave	Jul 11th, 2000 12:43:55 PM
To the poster who asked about Dick's original book (and contrary to what another foul-mouthed poster stated) Deckard most definitely was NOT a replicant in the original book. In the book, it occurs to Deckard that he might actually be a replicant and so he has someone give him the replicant test -- which he passes. FWIW.
All of you.....get a life! by Fandude	Jul 11th, 2000 12:51:43 PM
It's not up to Scott to determine wheter Deckard is a Replicant, it's up to the master, Philip K Dick. I suggest some of you read his stuff. Nuff said.
Thereisnospoon: It's all speculative, I agree. by superninja	Jul 11th, 2000 01:11:58 PM
But I always liked the idea that they all came down on the same ship, Deckard was captured and used to track the others who escaped the authorities. Actually, I felt the very cool video game hinted at this.
Superninja and Zeno by ThereIsNoSpoon	Jul 11th, 2000 01:41:41 PM
Ya'll are both cool. This is the most fun I've had at a talkback here. You guys should both be writers or film makers. I sincerely hope you both do something creative for a living and are not wasted in some office somewhere reprioritizing quarterly reports or something. People like you make me proud to be a fanboy. Now I'll shut up before some wishes-he-was-witty punk ass acuses us of being gay lovers or something.
Hello, McFly by Anton_Sirius	Jul 11th, 2000 02:42:47 PM
Can we put the slavish devotion to PKD to bed? The book is not the movie, and the movie is not the book. What Dick thought/wrote/intended in Do Androids Dream is no more relevant to Blade Runner than Heinlein's Starship Troopers noevl is to Verhoeven's film.
Thereisnospoon by superninja	Jul 11th, 2000 03:38:09 PM
Hahah! Yeah, I'm afraid I'm in pencil-pusher mode right now. Thanks for the compliment, though. And thanks for keeping it civil :) It's so refreshing!
Bad move, Ridley.. by Kid Z	Jul 11th, 2000 05:33:42 PM
... because the story, the very message and guiding force of the film just works better if it is never known for certain if Decker is a replicant. The veiwer can offer his own interpretation. One interpretation is that in a society that condones slavery, even of genetically engineered designer humanoids, has lost it's own humanity, has become souless to the point of being more inhuman than the supposedly "souless" beings it has created. Decker goes to work, kills, and comes home. He has no life, no friends, no family. His only companionship is his collection of family photos. The replicants on the other hand have passion, loves, friends and have seen "amazing things." So who's the robot? With Ridley putting the question to rest, all interpretations are tossed out except for the fanboy one that Decker is also a replicant. Works in a Marvel comic, but you just want something a little more substantial from a classic film like Bladerunner. Too bad...
I was at the infamous test screening by echack	Jul 11th, 2000 06:19:24 PM
Yeah, I was there, at the Dallas test sceening, along with Mr. Scott (he was in the popcorn line with me and thanked me for my appreciation of his work), the suits and Harrison Ford, who was rushed by me and my popcorn just as the lights went down. The original ending was not as said earlier. Deckard and Rachel left the apartment. He picks up the unicorn, rehears Gaff say (as they get in the elevator) "She won't live. But none of us do."* You see them in the elevator, doors close. The End. I don't remember the unicorn scene, there was a little voice over (at the very start). Why did the film end up the way it did? The test audience was mostly there to see the following film, that's why. A few of us sf fans got the word right before the test through a local book/comic store and just got there in time. Oh, what was the following film? "Chariots of Fire".
Sincere response: Wow Echack, that's actually pretty cool. Stan by Zeno	Jul 11th, 2000 07:24:12 PM
"Blade Runner, fine, but how was Chariots of Fire?"
This article is bogus! by SoonerSean	Jul 11th, 2000 07:35:35 PM
If Scott is changing the facts now, it's to cover up a mistake. They reference the wrong number of replicants because of script omissions - the original draft had the other female replicant. I realize the author of the article included that comment, but it's simply not correct and I would think that Scott could have corrected him if asked. An article on the Director's Cut DVD that will be re-issued stated that they had done new audio so that Bryant would say the "correct" number this time.
Vassilas...another clue for you to ponder... by Pseudo	Jul 12th, 2000 06:23:30 AM
...is that Soze is Turkish (I believe) for "speak." VERBAL Kint. Since few things happen in novels or films by accident I would believe that there is a connection between these things. Cheers, ??Pseudo??
Whoa There, Son, Them's Fightin' Words by Anton_Sirius	Jul 12th, 2000 11:19:24 AM
Gregory Peck wooden? Why, 'cause he doesn't go into Jimmy Stewart histrionics over a papercut? Subtle is not wooden. But you're probably a fan of shouters like Tommy Lee Jones. Now THERE'S a wooden actor.
Blade Runner by wackdoodle	Jul 12th, 2000 03:41:14 PM
I still love the movie, but the book that it is based on (I use the term 'based on' loosely because they really just stole the idea) 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep' by Phillip K. Dick is so much better than any version of the movie could ever be. If you read the book, Decker is not a replicant, nor could you even suggest that he is. I saw the movie when it was first released, I was like 9 yrs or so, and I really hoped the future would be like Ridley Scott vision. The movie is spectacular for the visionary quality but it pales in comparsion to the book as usual. Reality strikes the future sucks!
IT'S HIS SOUL!!!!!!! by rectus	Jul 12th, 2000 06:45:41 PM
The BAndaid behind the neck wich signifies the common ritual practiced by voodoo priests for removing a person's soul. The combination on the breifcase:666. Quentin Tarantino's own admittance of this fact. Why do you presume he was lying? Is it that you had to have this pointed out to you before you could figure it out.
Hey buddy, c'mere a minute. Yeah, you. by Zeno	Jul 12th, 2000 10:23:17 PM
Well, this Talkback board is just about finished. If you happened to wander in here for whatever reason, let me just take a sec to order to point something out to you while you're here. Scattered around this Talkback message board, you will find post after post after post written by different Users, yet repeating the SAME THING. Each post is written as if no one has ever made the profound observation that that person is making. For example, the explanation that the briefcase in Pulp Fiction has Marcellus's soul in it, and that the band-aid on the back of his head is where they took it out, voodoo, blah, blah, blah. Now, it's perfectly fine to reiterate something that someone has already said; in fact, I've done it myself in some of the posts below. Just be considerate, make reference to them in your post, and let us know your not an idiot just posting for the hell of it without reading anybody else. Proclaiming it like no one's said it before ruins your credibility, and again, makes you sound like an idiot. This is a common problem that probably won't go away anytime soon. As long as there are idiots, there will be idiotic posts. As a friendly word of advice, just try to at least skim everybody else's messages before you post. Don't be an idiot. Thanks for listening, be cool, and I look forward to reading your posts in the future. Yours truly, Zeno.
"based on the novel" by bigjon5354	Jul 17th, 2000 06:37:41 PM
real quick- read that subject phrase, "based on" does not mean "word for word novel to screen translation"....just because the novel had events happen one way has no relevance to the film. sometimes liberties are taken to make sure the movie comes across better to the general public, so yes applaud yourselves for reading (i do every day) but realize for every one of you there's ten people out there who wouldnt even glance at the novel (or is it novella? i admit im not a br buff!) that blade runner is based off. speaking of book to film, how many of you out there think hannibal will have the same ending as the book? not i said the fly!
Blade Runner react by aldo2damax	Jul 18th, 2000 01:28:34 AM
Amazing. Amazing. Amazing! I've seen this movie, oh about 100 times...really! Man, in my younger days, I used to hang out with "the fellas" in NYC. I used to go to clubs, drink all night, meet girls, and have a great time... ...when I'd sneak into my room (lived with parents), Blade Runner would be the movie I see. I used to get into this movie, and think very deeply. I pulled so much symbolism out of this movie that I thought I'd better slow down (if you know what I mean). Thru use of the internet, I found that there is a sub-culture behind this movie...I am a LIFETIME fan and forever will be...I just wanted to share that with you followers for and and against the movie... I always entertained the thought that Deckard was an android...but now that it has been confirmed,... imagine...an android...although, he will never be a human (created by God, in a religious sense), but is the android learning to be human? Is he learning to feel emotions? empathy? to love?... ...man I'm struggling as to what makes humans human? get it?...I hope so...will android learn to have act as if they have a soul... In the future, assuming the world of Blade Runner becomes a reality...(go with it alright), will humans accept androids as equals,or will we always use them as slaves to serve the population, to do Mankind's dirtywork, to cleanup our mess, will their be mixed marriages, civil rights, unlimted life or euthansia... ...is Man looking to become God? OK that's it...just wanted to let you know I really love this movie...and now that I know that Deckard is an android, I'm going to see the movie again... Get back to you... Regards, Aldo

Talkbacks

Ridley Scott Loses His Damn Fool Mind!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks