Voiceover or not? and IS Deckard a replicant?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, June 25, 2006 23:07
VIEWED: 9408
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 8:31 PM (P)

Does Blade Runner work better with the voiceover?
I like it but I think it works better without. Like I was tellin' Starrbaby I do like the shots of them driving at the end of the voiced-over version, though.
Is Deckard a replicant? Absolutly not. What sense would it make to "manufacture" a replicant to be a replicant hunter and not even endow him with the same basic strength as a pleasure unit?!

Okay, is there another opinion?

Chrisisall

YT

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:03 PM (P)

In my opinion, this message is in the wrong forum

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:22 PM (P)

Yeah, okay- but this is transplanted from "Ask Ndugu", I didn't stop to think it might belong in another forum.
Besides, Blade Runner and Firefly have much in common; they're both great.

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:22 PM (P)

Allright, no one's posting. Hmm. I'm gonna get schitzophrenic for a minute.

But Chrisisall, that was their genius, Deckard would never figure out he was a replicant if he was as physically as able as just a human, they counted on his mental capacity to air out the skinjobs!

EMBERS

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:36 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Yeah, okay- but this is transplanted from "Ask Ndugu", I didn't stop to think it might belong in another forum.
Besides, Blade Runner and Firefly have much in common; they're both great.

Chrisisall

Actually it was just a matter of time before Joss went for a nice film-noir,
Voice-over, Blade Runner type episode of Firefly (but we never got to see because they cancelled our show!).

Personally I felt that the voice over was a way to under score the vintage detective movie aspect of the show, with the rough PI (so no, why would you have a replicant with a 6 o'clock shadow, or more like a three day beard?). It's a genre thing.

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:47 PM (P)

Ha! Not true, Chrisisall! Batty's intelect was superior to Deckard's. So again, besides not being as strong, he's not as smart! He lost! Batty had to let him live. Who would design something to NOT work? Your argument is so weak.

Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:54 PM (P)

Wow, you posted just as I was being beside myself on this thread.

Actually I feel Firefly was very film-noir like, always deep shadows about, the darkness of space and such. Episodes like Trash and Out of Gas seeming like mysteries in a way...

Chrisisall

STARRBABY

Wednesday, April 6, 2005 9:57 PM (P)

I'm just going to restate what I said on the other thread.
I prefer a lack of VO.

I can undersatnd and respect why people would prefer a VO, mainly becasue it claifies many points, and it gives it a "Harlem Nocturne" feel. (If you don't get that wierd comparison, I'll be glad to explain. However, I don't want to get into it if everyone gets it. I know I hate it when I have to read explanations to something I already know.)

Anyway, I'm a huge fan of drawing my own conclutions about theatre and movies and stuff. Most of the time, I'm wrong, but I still like to do it.

Oh, and don't beat me up due to my horrid spelling. I was rushed, and decided not to run it through spellcheck.

ZOID

Thursday, April 7, 2005 2:35 AM (P)

chrisisall:

"Blade Runner" is better without the voice-over, and Deckard is definitely a replicant.

There is no reasoning required. Ridley Scott, the film's creator, did not intend for there to be a voice-over. It had nothing to do with a film noir, or '40's detective feel. The studio added it because they felt the audience was too stupid to follow the plot on their own. Ridley was so outraged about the studio's rape of his film, he almost had them take his name off it. The Director's Cut has no voice-over, I was able to comprehend it just fine, and it is the clearly superior version.

And Deckard is a replicant because R. Scott admitted he was.

Researchfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain." -Roy Batty, Blade Runner

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 7, 2005 9:10 PM (P)

Jus' a second there, Zoid. I once made a short post apocalyptic film in which you're led to believe a guy is all alone and searching for another person, anyone at all alive. Near the end of the film, seemingly too sad to go on he steps off a tall building. We see his body at street level partially in the pavement, face down. His hand jerks to life, and he gets up, then sees his reflection in a car window ( the first clear look at his face in the film) and he is a robot. As he's narrating the film he now says that he's looking for someone who knows how to shut down a 'Sentry Model 3'. the end (I grew up on Twilight Zone, what can I tell ya)
My point is, now I can say something like: "I never liked that ending, he's really not a robot, he just went crazy from being alone." But that wasn't the intention at the time the film was made. Sure, I made the film, I can say what I want to, I could re-shoot stuff if I want to, but that still doesn't change what I did way back when I shot it.
And if you study Blade Runner, other than Rachael asking if he ever took that test himself or some inconclusive reflection in Deckard's eyes at his apartment, there's nothing to lead me to believe that Scott had ever intended Deckard to be a replicant. Whatever he says now about that, well, maybe it's what he wanted to do then, but didn't or couldn't.

Did I make a case?

The Perry Mason-like Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 7, 2005 9:13 PM (P)

BTW you're right about the voice over, I liked it a lot when I was 21, but then I was only 21 ( don't mean to offend the youngsters).

The old Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 7, 2005 11:16 PM (P)

Starrbaby, thanks for the comeback, but I'm dyin' to know if people think Deckard's a replicant.

After reading my arguments, what do ya think?

An edgy, defensive Chrisisall

STARRBABY

Thursday, April 7, 2005 11:50 PM (P)

I made my own decision based on the movie W/O the VO. I then decided that he was a replicant. I really can't give much of a reason; it was just a gut feeling.

CHRISISALL

Thursday, April 7, 2005 11:58 PM (P)

Thanks, Starrbaby.

The losing 2 against 1 on this question Chrisisall

ZOID

Friday, April 8, 2005 1:10 AM (P)

chrisisall:

You're only playing devil's advocate: You think he's a replicant too. And you're right to feel that way, because he is a replicant. He's not a 'kick murder' type like Zhora, or a 'pleasure' model like Pris; he's an anti-replicant 'blade runner' model.

"You've done a man's job, sir." -Gaff
There's evidence all through the movie that he's a replicant (the pictures on his piano, and that he has a piano). That's why we always suspected he was one. People have asked Ridley for years whether Deckard was a replicant or not. He always steadfastly refused to say one way or another.

Then, on the 9th of July 2000, in an interview with the BBC, he fessed up. ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/825641.stm)

Ridley Scott's a filmmaking genius. I don't believe for one second that he intended anything other than for Deckard to be a replicant. He didn't change his mind about it, or any other explanation. Deckard was intended, written, foreshadowed and played as a replicant.

It was one of the greatest debates of all time, though, about arguably the greatest sci-fi movie ever shot (until 30 Sep 2005, that is).

You just missed the memo. It happens.

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
Wanna talk about whether Sharon Stone was or was not the ice pick murderer in Basic Instinct?
_________________________________________________

"Burn the land and boil the sea, you can't take the sky from me." The Ballad of Serenity

CHRONICTHEHEDGEHOG

Friday, April 8, 2005 1:39 AM (P)

This is so weird, I just came to the site for a break from writing my Blade Runner essay and top of the page is a topic devoted to it!

Is Deckard a replicant? In my opinion yes, he is. It has nothing to do with Ridley's confession (though it's interesting to note Harrison Ford has said that he and Scott discussed during filming how he definately was not a replicant), but the clues are littered through the film.

"Have you ever taken that test yourself?"
"You've done a man's job sir"
"Tyrell really did a job on Rachael. Right down to a snapshot of a mother she never had, a daughter she never was. Replicants weren't supposed to have feelings. Neither were blade runners. What the hell was happening to me? Leon's pictures had to be as phony as Rachael's. I didn't know why a replicant would collect photos. Maybe they were like Rachael. They needed memories." Just like Deckard.
Gaff's origami unicorn, just like Deckard's dream.
And most importantly, like every other replicant, Deckard's eyes shine red when he talks with Rachael in his apartment.

As to what sense it makes to give him human strength and intelligence, people of human strength and intelligence can kill replicants, so why risk it? If he knew he was a replicant why would he work as a blade runner? Empathy is a universal problem (or gift depending on how you look at it) in the film, if Deckard had any reason to empathise with them he couldn't finish his job.

ZOID

Friday, April 8, 2005 2:03 AM (P)

chronic':

Just goes to show ya': 1) Harrison Ford is smart enough to suspect his character was a replicant, too; 2) The director frequently keeps the actor in the dark as to the true nature of his character. He wants him to play it 'straight', acting like Deckard the Human, not Deckard the Replicant.

And like I said before, Tyrell Corp designed several models of replicant, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Clearly, the Deckard model was favored with analytical skills. "I think, Sebastian, therefore I am," Pris says. But analytical thinking is something Deckard does better than Roy, and Roy beat Tyrell at chess.

And Deckard is not totally devoid of superhuman endurance and strength. Carl Lewis would've been a stain on the sidewalk if he'd tried to long-jump the gap between those buildings (there's a street and sidewalks down there). Even though Roy jumped it with ease, Deckard's leap was inhuman, too.

Respectfully,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"We're not computers, Sebastian, we're physical." -Roy, Blade Runner

"Ah, kinship." -Roy, Blade Runner, as he grabs and lifts Deckard by the wrist, as he is slipping from the girder

ZOID

Friday, April 8, 2005 2:05 AM (P)

chronic':

Just goes to show ya': 1) Harrison Ford is smart enough to suspect his character was a replicant, too; 2) The director frequently keeps the actor in the dark as to the true nature of his character. He wants him to play it 'straight', acting like Deckard the Human, not Deckard the Replicant.

And like I said before, Tyrell Corp designed several models of replicant, each with their own strengths and weaknesses. Clearly, the Deckard model was favored with analytical skills. "I think, Sebastian, therefore I am," Pris says. But analytical thinking is something Deckard does better than Roy, and Roy beat Tyrell at chess.

And Deckard is not totally devoid of superhuman endurance and strength. Carl Lewis would've been a stain on the pavement if he'd tried to long-jump the gap between those buildings (there's a street and sidewalks down there). Even though Roy jumped it with ease, Deckard's leap was inhuman, too.

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
We got moved to 'Other Sci-Fi Series' while I was composing that, so that was a weird sensation. I guess this thread'll die now; but I think Tyrell was a replicant, too. A Tyrell replicant -- like a Tyrell's niece replicant (Rachael) -- would have valuable uses: A decoy against crazed replicants returning to Earth and snuffing the real Tyrell, for instance. Which begs the question: Who made the Tyrell model? (Answer: Bill Gates?)
_________________________________________________

"We're not computers, Sebastian, we're physical." -Roy, Blade Runner

"Ah, kinship." -Roy, Blade Runner, as he grabs and lifts Deckard by the wrist, as he is slipping from the girder

THEGREYJEDI

Friday, April 8, 2005 2:19 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
BTW you're right about the voice over, I liked it a lot when I was 21, but then I was only 21 ( don't mean to offend the youngsters).

The old Chrisisall

I first saw Blade Runner waaaaaaay back in the day. Like 13 or so. I don't remember which version I saw. But I remember uhich version I saw. I remember being confused.

But I got the Director's Cut several years ago, I think I was 18 or 19. I really like that version. And the Unicorn thing. I thought Deckard was a replicant.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Chief Engineer - USS SereniTREE.
http://www.jed-soft.com Gamer Rigs, Budget Prices
http://tomeofgrey.blogspot.com
Real Fans Wait - 09/30/05

NEEDLESEYE

Friday, April 8, 2005 6:34 AM (P)

When I first saw Blade Runner, I didn't catch the replicant question. I think I wasn't really watching the content of the movie.(I was watching Deckerd/Ford and Batty/Rutger.) But several years later when I got the video, I did notice all those things, and Deckerd's eyes,photos, etc... oh yeah I think he's a replicant.

I've thought maybe that the blade runners were created to be no better than human's abilities, so as not to intimidate, maybe explaining Deckerd's performance compared to the other replicants.

Keeper of Jayne's goggles. 8)

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Friday, April 8, 2005 4:11 PM (P)

A replicant? In the words of El Pablo Gonzalez, "No way, Hosea." But that's not the point, after all, is it?

Nope. The point is that the movie, and Philip K. Dick's novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" leave that question open for the viewer and the reader to decide. For me, there are too many elements that point to Deckard's humanity. Also, if they want an effective Blade Runner, they could have added all sorts of cyber gizmos for his work without the need to resort to computers. Sorry to disappoint you folks, but face it. Deckard's a human.

To qoute an essay on the subject. "By raising this issue, the reader is drawn further into Dick's science-fiction universe where reality is never what it seems and there are infinite possibilities for any situation."

Oh, and just to ruffle your feathers a little more, the voice-over is better than the movie without it.

"Keep Ted Turner and his goddamned Crayolas away from my movie."—Orson Wells

SERGEANTX

Friday, April 8, 2005 5:22 PM (P)

Funny, I just picked up this DVD a week ago and watched it again. A truly amazing movie.

In my opinion the interesting question is not whether Decker is a replicant, but why the question is introduced in the first place. When I first saw the movie, I thought it was a just a Hitchcock-like twist to add to the mystique or somesuch. Now, I'm seeing it a bit differently.

What struck me in re-watching, was just how sympathetic the androids are. In my opinion the point of raising the Decker/replicant question is to highlight the central metaphor of the movie which is, not that the replicants are very much like us, but that we are the replicants - lost, desperate creatures frustrated by the knowledge of our own mortality.

"...all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."

And don't even get me started on the religious symbolism....

Oh... and the director's cut is much better.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 8, 2005 6:32 PM (P)

Zoid, several excellent points! I must think on this more...

One last thing to consider(or explain to me), near the end Roy says, directly to Deckard: "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe..."
I've assumed that by "you people" he was referring to non-replicants of which Decard was one, and when he said "Ah, kinship" he was referring to Deckard's determination or will to live being similar to Roy's own in this moment so close to what could be both their ends.

Your powers of reason are impecable. Mr. Holms has nothing on you.

The now wondering if he's wrong Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 8, 2005 8:13 PM (P)

Zoid, I somehow accessed your other post, the one that didn't make it here, wierd, huh?
I don't know if you got my reply, so I'll do it over, with more.
Excellent points you made!! I'm not playing devil's ad, I've truly been on the fence about this for years. All the comments on this thread(especially yours) are gettin' me leanin' toward his bein' a rep. One last thing I'd like a comment on if you'd oblige;
When Roy said "Ah, kindred", I figgered that to mean he recognized a will and determination to live similar to his own in the face of what could have been both their ends. And when he said, directly to Deckard, "I've seen things you people wouldn't believe...", I thought he was referring to non-replicants, of which Deckard was a part.

This thread has me goin' more than i could have hoped, and Zoid, your analytical and reasioning powers are beyond compare. Mr. Holms has nuthin' on ya.

(..hey, are you a replicant?)

The fence-sittin' Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 8, 2005 8:23 PM (P)

BlackoutNights, perhaps in the world of Blade Runner, a sense of humanity from a character may be the very reason that character is a replicant-? Except for Sebastian, most 'people' there don't seem to have much in the way of humanity. Just a thought.

Also, the voiceover does add some color to the movie, but it also takes away some of the 'starkness', like I said somwhere above, I can take it either way (my feathers ain't ruffled - hey, howdja know I had feathers?)

The all-too-human Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 8, 2005 8:29 PM (P)

Just wait (and you will!) for the special edition on dvd, I can't wait for a truly clear picture.( I hear it's due out the year the movie's supposed to take place)

The used-to-be-a-thirtysomething-also Chrisisall

BLACKOUTNIGHTS

Friday, April 8, 2005 8:45 PM (P)

The true answer is there is no answer. Like most things, it's all in the eye of the beholder.

"We are the knights who say...KNEE!"

CHRISISALL

Friday, April 8, 2005 9:06 PM (P)

That's the sheer beauty of it; the movie itself does'nt produce answers, it's mostly asking questions. Whether he is or isn't a replicant is irrelevant in the face of the question, 'What is it to be human, to be alive?'
An important question in an era of AI and genetic manipulation (the flick was 20 or 30 years ahead of it's time).

"A certain point of view?" Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Saturday, April 9, 2005 1:47 AM (P)

Zoid, a few more words, and my journey towards the replicant side will be complete.

The seen ROTJ too many times Chrisisall

ZOID

Saturday, April 9, 2005 8:37 AM (P)

SergeantX:

It's 2:17 AM CDT, I just got in from a swing shift and am going to bed pronto; but I just had to say that you were dead right. As Gaff said, "It's too bad she won't live; but then again, who does?" Do you know your expiration date? We take our every breath in the shadow of death. (NB: Poet, didn't know it.)

But I think the movie goes further than that. It asks the question: "How close to human must a machine get before the machine must be considered human itself?" This is echoed in Tyrell's motto (and Rob Zombie's borrowed lyric), "More human than human." The movie's kind of a working example of the Turing Test.

For me, Gaff is a central character, Ridley-in-the-machine (or '-movie', if that helps). Aside from his origami skills, his physical reactions to Deckard are telling, too. He hardly speaks to Deckard. When they are in the aircar together, it's as though Deckard wasn't even there, or as though he were just tending the machinery. I always got the impression that Gaff was watching him out of the corner of his eye, cooly observing him. And it's odd that Gaff always seems to be appearing from nowhere. He seems to know exactly where Deckard is, but offers no assistance (as in the entire Bradbury Hotel sequence at the end, when he shows up only after Batty has expired).

I think Gaff is Deckard's handler. Why would he toss Deckard a gun, after Batty was dead? The entire scene goes:

Quote:
Gaff: You've done a man's job, sir. I guess you're through, huh?
Deckard: Finished.
[Gaff throws Deckard the gun]
Gaff: It's too bad she won't live! But then again, who does?

I think Gaff was saying, "I'm supposed to retire you once you've finished this job, but I'm not going to."
(NB: And in case anybody missed it in one of the other threads, I think Edward James Olmos is a magnificent actor. Catch him every time you get a chance, like in "Battlestar Galactica". He's physically subtle.)

SergeantX: The next time you're renting old stuff at HollyBlockster, see if you can find a copy of "Zoot Suit", with EJO. It's really pretty crappy, with the exception of Olmos, who is jaw dropping. The expression tour de force comes to mind. And of course, "Stand And Deliver", for which he was Oscar-nominated Best Leading Actor in 1989.

chrisisall:
Please note Roy's inflection on the word "people". He is making no distinction between himself and Deckard.

B.o.N.:
Call Ridley Scott a liar if you want; I take no offense. When I read the novelette, "Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep?", after having seen "Blade Runner", I was immediately struck by the fact that the movie and novelette were completely different. In "...Sheep", Deckard's more of a flat foot, ploddingly hunting down a bunch of frightened androids, who act like Jewish escapees hiding in attics to avoid discovery by the Gestapo. The replicants in "...Sheep" are as timid as office workers and half as threatening. Are you sure you didn't read a novelization of "Blade Runner"?

Sleepily,

zoid
_________________________________________________

"We began to recognize in them a strange obsession. After all, they are emotionally inexperienced, with only a few years in which to store up the experiences which you and I take for granted. If we gift them with a past, we create a cushion or a pillow for their emotions, and consequently, we can control them better." -Tyrell, Blade Runner (emphasis mine)

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 10, 2005 3:14 AM (P)

Okay, I watched it again last night and I've made my decision.
I'm TOTALLY on the fence.
I can't make up my mind and it doesn't matter..it's still my all time favourite flick( untill September, anyway).

Thank a lot, Browncoats.

The sometimes replicant Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, April 10, 2005 7:29 PM (P)

Okay, this horse ain't dead enough for me.
I watched it AGAIN last night and I noticed something else.
It seems they only recently were able to make replicants seem absolutly, totally human. On the floating ad it referred to " your new friend" like replicants were more like Sebastians toys, maybe not that toy-like, but not 100% human like either.I assume Rachael and Roy to be among the first of this new line, as Sebastian acts like he's never actually seen one before and it takes him time to figure it out ( I know Nexus 6 aren't allowed on Earth, but if they had been around for a long time I think Sebastian would have recognised Priss as being one sooner).
And Bryant seems to have a history with Deckard that goes back more than four measily years...

Again, I think most of this is intentional so as to leave open many interpretations.

Now I'm leaning toward human, but I know I'll never get off this damn fence!

The sore butted Chrisisall

ZOID

Monday, April 11, 2005 12:32 AM (P)

chrisisall:

Quote:
TYRELL: We began to recognize in them a strange obsession. After all, they are emotionally inexperienced, with only a few years in which to store up the experiences which you and I take for granted. If we gift them with a past, we create a cushion or a pillow for their emotions, and consequently, we can control them better.

Deckard: Memories! You're talking about memories!

Of course Deckard and Bryant have a history together, otherwise there wouldn't be a cushion -- dare I say, a 'pillow' -- for Deckard's emotions. Gaff might otherwise find it difficult to to get the desired results from his blade runner investment...

Consider this: If you're still enjoying pondering this puzzle, some 25 years downstream from its somewhat disappointing theatrical run, what does that say about the power of science fiction to provoke philosophical contemplation? Furthermore, I think sci-fi -- when it's at its best -- is the only genre capable of providing a framework for such introspection.

The fact that this enduring enigma -- is Deckard a human or a replicant? -- has been a hot topic of debate at least since the Director's Cut came out, only underscores my earlier statement about the central theme of the movie. At what point does a machine become worthy of being considered human? What is essential about being human?

The fact that we really can't tell whether Deckard is human or machine becomes a proof of the Turing Test. If we cannot tell the difference, then there is no difference ("More human than human"). When the machine (programming) can so convincingly mimic a human (intelligence) that you can argue about it for 25 years and still not come to a firm conclusion, then it no longer matters which he is. By the Turing Test (or Chinese Box, if one prefers), he is intelligence in either case.

If he is intelligence, if it takes a hundred cross-referenced questions by Voight-Kampff examination (or more than 5 minutes by Turing), this raises serious ethical questions. As Rachael asked, "Have you ever taken that test yourself?" and "Have you ever retired a human by mistake?", both questions Deckard does not answer. If Deckard is a human, he's just doing his job. If he's a machine elevated to intelligence, then it makes the other replicants intelligent -- human -- too. If he's a machine intelligence killing other machine intelligences, then he is a murderer, even if it's "nothing the god of biomechanics wouldn't let you into Heaven for," as Roy Batty accused Tyrell.

Making a 'human', programmed to kill other humans, with memories to make them better able to accept such a role, is Tyrell's and humanity's great sin. This was the ethical flaw at the end of the movie version of "I, Robot".

In closing, let's play a little thought experiment: Let's say you, the reader, were actually a 2-year old replicant, with embedded memories of an entire life equal to your current span of 30 apparent years. Then one day, you take a psych eval at work and are informed that you are in fact a replicant. Do you suddenly see yourself as a machine, or do you still think of yourself as human? How would you feel if you learned you only had 2 more years of servitude to your masters before your body ceased functioning and was thrown on the scrap heap? How would you react to the idea that your masters were sending an assassin to kill you, because you found out the truth about yourself, that you are a replicant?

I think Deckard figures out that he is a replicant at the end, as he gathers Rachael from his apartment and finds Gaff's origami unicorn, even if viewers remained unconvinced. The fact that Ridley Scott himself said Deckard was a replicant, and yet the debate still rages on, is testimony to how well he crafted the argument, regardless Deckard's status, either human or machine.

Respectfully,

zoid

P.S.
BTW, we are all replicants. It's just done at the molecular level through the agency of our parents' DNA. If you happen to

CHRISISALL

Monday, April 11, 2005 1:28 AM (P)

A fitting and perfect end to this thread.
Thanks so much Zoid, for sharing some views with us that we might not all have considered.

You've done a man's job, sir.

The replicant after all Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Sunday, December 4, 2005 3:23 PM (P)

This was one of my favourite threads of all time- Zoid's musings here should be required reading at the Acadamy. I thought I'd 'bump' it for the newbies who like Blade Runner.

That old thread-re-activator, Chrisisall

FLETCH2

Sunday, December 4, 2005 4:13 PM (P)

The one thing I think you've missed WRT Rachel and Deckard is the line by Tyrell "the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long." Roy has a limited lifespan as a byproduct of his enhanced abilities, but that's ok he's a soldier model and expendable.

My thought is that if you build a replicant with human levels of strength and endurance you extend their lifespan, this is usefull for a Bladerunner because a lot of their job involves "streetsmart" skills and contacts that take time to develop. If it takes you two years to build up the contacts you need and you only live 4 years then you only have 2 really productive years. If a none superhuman Bladerunner gets say 10 years, this really extends their usefullness.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, December 4, 2005 4:20 PM (P)

Wow. A very interesting possibility! And so soon, too!

Chrisisall Batty

JAYTEE

Sunday, December 4, 2005 5:11 PM (P)

I'm not sure if Deckard was a replicant or not. The original story Blade Runner was based on was Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep by Philip K. Dick and it's been sooooooo long since I read it I can't remember if there was an ironic twist at the end or not but given Dick's penchant for irony I wouldn't be surprised if that was the way things were supposed to go and that Deckard was a replicant. One thing I am certain of: Bush is a replicant and I think Cheney has the remote control unit :-)

Jaytee

ECGORDON

Sunday, December 4, 2005 6:09 PM (P)

I believe Chrisisall had another Blade Runner thread going, to which I responded several weeks ago.

To answer the first question, my opinion is the Director's Cut without the voice-over is the better version. As to whether Deckard is a replicant or not, I have to say it doesn't matter one way or the other to the quality of the film. Either way works for me.

In that other thread I linked to my review of it, written about three years ago now. No reason not to provide it again in case anyone might be itnerested. Don't worry about it being a Tripod site, there will be no pop-up ads. I pay a monthly fee to eliminate those.

http://templetongate.tripod.com/bladerunner.htm

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

AUNTYCHRIS

Sunday, December 4, 2005 7:17 PM (P)

The one thing that bothers me that hasn't been brought up yet: I believe Deckard was retired from the police force. If he's a replicant it doesn't seem as though they'd let him run around loose, so to speak, althought the idea that Gaff is his "handler" may make that plausible. However, another point, Tyrell claims Rachel is the "newest model" of rep, but Deckard would seem to be as "emotionally" advanced as she is and he's been around for a while.

I realize Ridley Scott admitted Deckard was a rep, but I was totally taken aback when I heard that, and wondered if he was just trying to stir up controversy after the fact...

FOLLOWMAL

Sunday, December 4, 2005 8:57 PM (P)

Glad you reactivated it, Chrisisall. I knew as soon as I saw the thread title it was one of yours.

I have not watched the Director's Cut for awhile, I'll do so again tonight and really see what I think. But from memory... don't like the voice over and I always believed Deckard was a replicant. I saw Bladerunner in the theater when it came out ( boy that really dates me) and I thought he was when I left the theater. Gut instinct I guess or followed the clues to that conclusion. I was relieved when Scott admitted it at a later date.

I love these movie threads you start!

Also, "Bladerunner" was my favorite scifi movie too, until "Serenity".

This is a stimulating conversation folks...

"...all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain." Roy Batty

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 5, 2005 1:25 AM (P)

I'm still on my fence about it. But like Zoid pointed out, it doesn't matter, and that's the beauty of the film.

P.S., I saw it in the theatre, too (but I'm not past my expiration date)

Now, when do we get the special edition Chrisisall

FOLLOWMAL

Monday, December 5, 2005 2:11 AM (P)

Stopped by my Mom's house this evening to visit a little, told her about this thread and she says she NEVER thought Deckard was a replicant! So...

YEA, when does that special edition come out!?

FollowMal... waiting for THAT with interest!

INIRE

Monday, December 5, 2005 4:54 AM (P)

in the voiceover version, I would have never thought of him being a replicant, but having just seen the directors cut (and having had some talkin' to by a huge fan of that version), i can see why there could be a case made for him being one of them.

'course, he did get his a$$ kicked by roy....

REGINAROADIE

Monday, December 5, 2005 6:07 AM (P)

I think the real question is, do we care?

I think I am the only person I know who doesn't like BLADE RUNNER at all. I've seen the "improved" director's cut and all that, and have read about how BLADE RUNNER was ahead of its time and revolutionary and one of the best sci-fi movies ever made and the ONLY good adaptation of a Phillip K. Dick story.

But for me, it's just a bunch of pretty visuals and good music. The plot line is unengaging, the characters are just blah, and the whole thing moves with the pace of a glacier.

I know most of you are gonna be pissed at what I have to say, but I've honestly tried. And I can't see the awesomeness everyone else sees.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"YES!!!I'm a man posessed by many demons....Polite demons that would open the door for a lady carrying too many parcels...BUT DEMONS NONETHELESS!!!! Yes. I have walked along the path of evil many times, it's a twisting, curving path that..actually leads to a charming plot garden, BUT BEYOND THAT EVIL!!!"

SERGEANTX

Monday, December 5, 2005 6:15 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
...I know most of you are gonna be pissed at what I have to say, but I've honestly tried. And I can't see the awesomeness everyone else sees.

I can't see why anyone would be pissed at you for not liking it. Your complaints are in line with many of the reviews for it when it first aired.

Personally I do happen to think it's one of the greatest films of all time, and definitely the best sci-fi movie. But I'm a sucker for big metaphor and tragedy. Blade Runner fairly drips with both. Plus I prefer movies that take their time. For me, the visuals and music were just icing on the cake.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 5, 2005 2:26 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
I know most of you are gonna be pissed at what I have to say, but I've honestly tried. And I can't see the awesomeness everyone else sees.

Would ya be pissed at me for saying that I think 2001 is Kubrick's worst movie, and is just a collection of awsome visuals stitched together with little or no plot?

We've all got our own opinions, and sometimes a flick just doesn't 'reach' us. And sometimes it depends richly on what we bring to the party. Objectivly, I can say Firestarter isn't a great movie, but I love it, in no small part due to having the novel in my head to fill in the blanks as I watch it.

So no, I don't think most of us are pissed.
(But, dis Serenity, and all bets are off)

Leon Chrisisall

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 5, 2005 2:39 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The one thing I think you've missed WRT Rachel and Deckard is the line by Tyrell "the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long." Roy has a limited lifespan as a byproduct of his enhanced abilities, but that's ok he's a soldier model and expendable.

I've mulled it over, and now I think that Tyrell was gettin' all metaphorical-like to try and talk his way out almost certain death; increased strength and intelligence wouldn't limit duration of oganic function, that's just the expiration date stamped into the genom.

Chrisisall, a real genetic scientist

FLETCH2

Monday, December 5, 2005 9:02 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
The one thing I think you've missed WRT Rachel and Deckard is the line by Tyrell "the light that burns twice as bright burns half as long." Roy has a limited lifespan as a byproduct of his enhanced abilities, but that's ok he's a soldier model and expendable.

I've mulled it over, and now I think that Tyrell was gettin' all metaphorical-like to try and talk his way out almost certain death; increased strength and intelligence wouldn't limit duration of oganic function, that's just the expiration date stamped into the genom.

Chrisisall, a real genetic scientist

Well two things here.

First, almost no TV or movie scifi is writen by anyone that knows anything about the subject. So just because as someone versed in science it doesnt seem reasonable doesn't mean that IN THAT WORLD that isn't how things work just because the writers didn't know any better. It's like the 'verse being one big solar system, if you look into the habitable zones around stars there is no way a single star could support so many worlds. It exists because that was the way it was writen.

Second, unless we missed the line about a nuclear power source these guys work by burning food in air. To get the power we've observed they would need a high speed metabolism and that would accelerate the cell damage. If we assume that the weakness of Tyrell's technique is the relacement of damaged cells then the more "juice" you have the more damage you do and the quicker you die.

As to your point about Tyrell playing with Roy -- yes I can see that. When I saw the movie the first time I had believed up until that point that replicants were DESIGNED to expire that early. From dialogue elsewhere it seems like the Nexus series were used offworld and had access to the industrial and military resources that kept the wet, run down earth supplied. If the replicants know that they will die in 4 years it gives them less opertunity to either rebel against their masters or seize the outer colonies for themselves. I had assumed that 4 years was the fail safe to ensure that these "beter" people didnt usurp us....

maybe it was?

CHRISISALL

Monday, December 5, 2005 10:05 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
To get the power we've observed they would need a high speed metabolism and that would accelerate the cell damage.

True, faster metabolism can lead to higher levels of free-radical production and shorter life span in general, but consider a professional weightlifter: weighs twice as much as a paper-pushing counter-part, eats twice to three times as much, but can be three to five times as strong. Life span with good nutrition averages between 5 to 7 years shorter. Now take into account being genetically 'amped up', and we might find only about a ten year difference in actual lifespans, with metabolism up 20% and strength up to 8 times norm.

Chrisisall, PHDuh

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 1:52 AM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
...
(But, dis Serenity, and all bets are off

I'll take that challenge - if you really wanna to there...

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 2:11 AM (P)

SergeantX, YOU didn't like Serenity???
*Place tearful emoticon here*

Chrisisall, no longer a betting man

SERGEANTX

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 2:15 AM (P)

Well... I wouldn't go that far. But I'd hoped it would be better. I honestly liked most of the episodes better. I can get longwinded about the topic, but to keep it short, it just didn't feel like Firefly. It felt like it was aimed at a target audience, and I never got that feeling from the series. Mostly it was just a question of it being all actiony and epic. I really liked the more languid pacing of the series and sorely missed it in the movie.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

REGINAROADIE

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 2:25 AM (P)

Hey, I'm all for grand metaphors and tragedy. Unlike chrisisall, I do think 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is one of the best sci-fi films ever and, like every other Kubrick film, a masterpiece. If you've only seen it on a tv screen, try to see it on a movie theatre screen.

Before the Coronet in my home city was torn down, in its last year, they showed some classic films. I was able to watch RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and AKIRA on the big screen. I gotta tell ya, your appreciation for the film only deepens when you see it in a movie theatre.

And I'm a huge fan of tragedy. I love a good tragedy. YOU CAN'T GO HOME AGAIN is my foray into tragic writing. HOUSE OF SAND AND FOG is one of my fave films of 2003.

But as for BLADE RUNNER, it might have been those things, but it didn't do anything for me. At least BRAZIL had that manic sense of humor to it.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
"YES!!!I'm a man posessed by many demons....Polite demons that would open the door for a lady carrying too many parcels...BUT DEMONS NONETHELESS!!!! Yes. I have walked along the path of evil many times, it's a twisting, curving path that..actually leads to a charming plot garden, BUT BEYOND THAT EVIL!!!"

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 6:08 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Mostly it was just a question of it [Serenity] being all actiony and epic. I really liked the more languid pacing of the series and sorely missed it in the movie.

Considered seperatly from FF I must agree with you, but as, like, a two part season finale, I think it's a perfect ending.
Like the last twenty minutes of War Stories, it was too intense for languisity.
My biggest pet peeve is the lack of Greg Edmonson's music.

Chrisisall, who makes up words like 'languisity' as needed

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, December 6, 2005 6:15 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
Unlike chrisisall, I do think 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is one of the best sci-fi films ever and, like every other Kubrick film, a masterpiece.

Don't get me wrong, it IS a masterpiece, AND one of the best ever, and STILL Kubrick's worst movie, IMHO.

But Blade Runner's better Chrisisall

SYSTEMADDICT

Tuesday, December 27, 2005 8:07 AM (P)

I didn't get the time to read every post...

So I'll just toss my cents into the hat...

No Voiceover is better...I think few movies are improved with them (memento perhaps does a great job with them)...but they tend to take away from truly great film making...Which Blade Runner is...

As far as Deckard being a Relicant or not...In the book, he is not. In the movie it's unclear...If you listen to Scott, he says he is...Harrison Ford thought otherwise...

I think Philip Dick intended this type of murkly line blur though, for reasons that should be fairly apparent.

You never really can tell...

"If I knew it was harmless, I would have killed it myself." ~PKD

NOAHINHISCUPS

Saturday, December 31, 2005 6:54 AM (P)

This ol' argument!

I won't bother with the obvious historical stuff since I'm sure that's been covered...

As a fledgling writer myself, well, at least in film school i found myself resorting to Voice Over when i wanted to explain things clearly and succintly. But as I mature as a writer I always think of that scene in "Adaptation" where the Robert McKee character is yelling/lecturing; "and god help you if you use voice over in your work! It's sloppy flaccid writing!"

I don't agree with the real Mckee on to many points, I think his approach is formulaic and boring, and after all, voice over is just one tool at a filmmakers disposal, so it's stupid to just say it's completely wrong. I would however agree to the statement that voice over is to often utilized by inexperienced writers (myself included) and to an extent it shouldn't be used.
I struggled recently with a short sci-fi script over whether I should use voice over to cover finer details, and what i finally realized is that, to me at least, good screenwriting is not contained within either dialogue or voice over, but the image. Film is a visual medium, and people forget that. Two or three sentences of action can be enough to convey more narrative and the internal motivations of the characters than any spoken word can do.

So yeah. Blade Runner is better without the voice overs. It's the ambiguity, what isn't said at all that is interesting. We can never know exactly what the characters are thinking, but that is probably what makes the story so damned intriguing.

Again, not to say voice overs are bad, one of my favorite filmmakers - Wong Kar Wei - uses them to great effect - but they should be used when they are appropriate. Not to beat the audience over the head with what they should be smart enough to put together from the images they are seeing on the screen. But that's another discussion...

"God doesn't want me to write, but I must! I must!" - Kafka

NOAHINHISCUPS

Saturday, December 31, 2005 7:00 AM (P)

I noticed some less than enthusiastic attitudes towards Blade Runner. Just wanted to add that when I initially watched the movie almost ten years ago, I was bored to tears. I hated it. So I can understand why it's had such a wierd history.

But a subsequent viewing a few years down the road changed my mind, and now it's my favorite movie period.

I remember reading that Kubrick insisted it was superior to 2001. He was a modest guy, but I can't say I disagree with him. Again, an argument for another time...

VIOLETRIX

Saturday, December 31, 2005 11:01 AM (P)

i have to put in my two cents, or maybe my one-and-a-half cents, because BR is one of my favorite movies. i've also read do androids dream of electric sheep? and to tell the truth, i liked the movie better. (i know, i know. blasphemy.)

i didn't like the voiceover, though i can see the film noir-ish aspect of it and appreciate it for what it is. but i didn't like it. i also know that ridley scott meant for deckard to be a replicant and i can see it, clear as day.
but you're right, chris. why didn't he have the strength or the brains of the others?
since i've read the book, which is significantly different, i've got, like, two versions of the story running around in my head.
but i think, regardless of what mr. scott says (since, respectively, it's not his story), i think PKD was aiming toward a more ambiguous answer to that.

and before everyone yells at me, i have not read all of this thread, since it's late and i've had 1/2 a bottle of cherry manischewitz. happy hanukkah!

http://violetrix.blogspot.com
you won't remember anyway

ECGORDON

Saturday, December 31, 2005 3:11 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by reginaroadie:
Unlike chrisisall, I do think 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY is one of the best sci-fi films ever and, like every other Kubrick film, a masterpiece.
Don't get me wrong, it IS a masterpiece, AND one of the best ever, and STILL Kubrick's worst movie, IMHO.

Nope, that would be The Killing, which coincidentally is one of the classic examples of voice-over used very, very badly.

wo men ren ran zai fei xing.

CHRISISALL

Sunday, January 1, 2006 7:20 PM (P)

You are correct. I forgot about that one.

Chrisisall on film

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, June 14, 2006 4:03 PM (P)

Quote:
Originally posted by violetrix:

but you're right, chris. why didn't he have the strength or the brains of the others?

It was all a grand design by Tyrell, so that Deckard would never know he was a replicant.
Or maybe he's human.

Ambiguous Chrisisall re-activating the thread in the wake of the new Blade Runner: Final Cut news

J6NGO1977

Thursday, June 15, 2006 7:16 PM (P)

I like em both as they are 2 different films. Deckard is a Replicant it refers to it in 'Do Androids dream of Electric Sheep'. It's been a long time since I read the book but I remeber Deckard had an Android Goat (I think it was a goat) and Rachel pushes it off the top of a building. Maybe a 'Dick Head' can fill in the gaps :)

CHRISISALL

Sunday, June 25, 2006 11:07 PM (P)

I just think it works better not to know either way. In the end, it's really unimportant to the message of the film.

Replicant Chrisisall