Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 11:46:47 AM

Login with username, password and session length

Plot Holes That are a Step Too Far.

Started by yesitsme, June 19, 2018, 02:18:03 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Funcrusher

Are people seriously suggesting that Ridley Scott shot the dream sequence and origami unicorn without understanding what they were about and only came upon the idea that Deckard might be a replicant after the films release?

I had a big magazine covering Blade Runner when I was a kid and from what I remember of the interview with PKD himself in there he read a Hampton Fancher version of the script which he thought was generic sci-fi and hated, whereas David People's re-write which became the eventual film he liked a lot more.

Avril Lavigne

Quote from: Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth on June 23, 2018, 10:02:35 AM
The narrator was shuffling along the ground with his feet.

I know that's the intention, but the way Ed Norton is moving backwards on his own so quickly and smoothly with his hands behind his head doesn't look physically possible to me and it ends up looking like a scene out of Hollow Man, as opposed to the other scenes where he's just realistically beating himself up.

a duncandisorderly

Quote from: Funcrusher on June 23, 2018, 10:52:56 AM
Are people seriously suggesting that Ridley Scott shot the dream sequence and origami unicorn without understanding what they were about and only came upon the idea that Deckard might be a replicant after the films release?

I had a big magazine covering Blade Runner when I was a kid and from what I remember of the interview with PKD himself in there he read a Hampton Fancher version of the script which he thought was generic sci-fi and hated, whereas David People's re-write which became the eventual film he liked a lot more.

another policeman knows that deckard is a replicant & taunts him with an origami unicorn, like the one he sees in his implanted dream... it sort of makes sense, if you buy that

a) deckard is a sufficiently advanced replicant that he doesn't have an expiry date (& that tyrell was lying about this whole business to batty),
b) that tyrell would supply the LAPD with a replicant to police his own unruly creations, but not give them a tough-guy like batty
c) the 'implanted' unicorn dream is supposed to reinforce deckard's belief that he is human (this is less of a stretch than the previous two, tbh)
d) scott knew what he was doing... took out the dream ('confusing'), left the origami in (not at all confusing now, is it?)

accounts I have read of PKD's reaction to the movie are that he wasn't impressed with the script in the form he saw it, but that he brightened upon being shown the set designs, & then died before anything but test footage had been shot.

but we've established that I know fuck-all about this movie.


BeardFaceMan

Quote from: Avril Lavigne on June 23, 2018, 12:15:28 PM
I know that's the intention, but the way Ed Norton is moving backwards on his own so quickly and smoothly with his hands behind his head doesn't look physically possible to me and it ends up looking like a scene out of Hollow Man, as opposed to the other scenes where he's just realistically beating himself up.

Get out of my head!

Shit Good Nose

#64
Quote from: a duncandisorderly on June 23, 2018, 12:20:27 PM
a) deckard is a sufficiently advanced replicant that he doesn't have an expiry date (& that tyrell was lying about this whole business to batty),
b) that tyrell would supply the LAPD with a replicant to police his own unruly creations, but not give them a tough-guy like batty
c) the 'implanted' unicorn dream is supposed to reinforce deckard's belief that he is human (this is less of a stretch than the previous two, tbh)
d) scott knew what he was doing... took out the dream ('confusing'), left the origami in (not at all confusing now, is it?)

a) theories originally discussed were that Deckard was a Nexus 7, possibly 8, and a super secret experiment that Tyrell was working on.  A further theory (derived from an early storyboard idea by Scott that was never used) was that the Tyrell in the film is himself a replicant carrying on his human equivalent's work to try and perfect man-made humans.
b) not to police his own unruly creations, but to see if Deckard would pass undetected as human.  I.e. hidden in very plain sight.
c) no, you've contradicted yourself there - in the versions that include the unicorn sequence it's supposed to suggest that he's either a replicant (Gaff knows what dreams and memories have been implanted and he's letting Deckard know by leaving the origami unicorn there), or that replicants are so advanced they have the same dreams and (to them) real memories that humans do.  Done so because, even though Scott himself believes that Deckard IS a replicant, his original intention was to not make it 100% explicit either way and let the audience make up their own minds.  The fact that people still debate this 36 years later means that he was fairly successful there.
d) Scott didn't take out the unicorn sequence and never wanted to.  He was forced to by Warner Bros.  His intention was to always leave a question mark (see above).


Quote
accounts I have read of PKD's reaction to the movie are that he wasn't impressed with the script in the form he saw it, but that he brightened upon being shown the set designs, & then died before anything but test footage had been shot.

That is correct, however if memory serves PKD read a very early version of the script, before Peoples was brought on to tighten and polish it up a bit.


Quote


That made me LOL.

Ferris

Quote from: popcorn on June 20, 2018, 10:27:46 AM
That was something that drove me mental when they cast a female Dr Who and loads of nerds objected. Take this tweet from Jonny Sharples, which got 7.5k retweets and 20k likes: "Your dad thinks Dr Who being a woman spoils the realism of someone travelling space & time in a phonebox fighting bins with plungers on them"

This unintentionally reinforces the notion that a female Who is unrealistic (by equating it with the unrealistic premise  of a time traveller). It's the wrong line of attack.

The objection isn't that a female Who is unrealistic. Scifi isn't some nonsense genre without rules. If the new Dr Who was an inanimate corkscrew, no one would like it, and not because of arguments about realism. Characters have to feel real even in unrealistic stories. That women don't seem real to the bad nerds is the problem, not "realism".

Disclaimer: I do not care about Dr Who and I think a female Who sounds like a fine idea, why not?

This is a very good point. Is the new Dr Who any good btw?

greenman

Wasn't it some test FX footage that PKD reacted to most positively? to the degree he was taken aback by how closely it matched his idea of the stories visuals?

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: greenman on June 23, 2018, 02:53:48 PM
Wasn't it some test FX footage that PKD reacted to most positively? to the degree he was taken aback by how closely it matched his idea of the stories visuals?

Yes and yes.  When he saw the effects tests he gave Scott and the production his full blessing.

Avril Lavigne

Quote from: FerriswheelBueller on June 23, 2018, 02:14:50 PM
This is a very good point. Is the new Dr Who any good btw?

Apparently it's not even starting til Autumn. It feels like the whole furore about the new Doctor was so long ago now that the series with her in it should have been and gone already.

Ferris

Quote from: Avril Lavigne on June 23, 2018, 03:23:52 PM
Apparently it's not even starting til Autumn. It feels like the whole furore about the new Doctor was so long ago now that the series with her in it should have been and gone already.

I sort of assumed it had, actually. I haven't watched it for years and in Canada you have to actively seek it out.

Mister Six

Quote from: popcorn on June 20, 2018, 10:27:46 AM
The objection isn't that a female Who is unrealistic. Scifi isn't some nonsense genre without rules. If the new Dr Who was an inanimate corkscrew, no one would like it, and not because of arguments about realism. Characters have to feel real even in unrealistic stories. That women don't seem real to the bad nerds is the problem, not "realism".

One of the complaints was that it was unrealistic for a male to turn into a female, though, despite fans not having blinked an eye at the blatantly unrealistic premise of regeneration for more than 40 years.

Ornlu

Quote from: St_Eddie on June 22, 2018, 03:47:10 PM
I can relate.  I use this...



...to wank me off.  Sure, I could do it manually in a crisis but I'd sooner have the robot arm do it for me.

"Ahh, porn can't move that way, ya stupid arm."

a duncandisorderly

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on June 23, 2018, 03:11:41 PM
Yes and yes.  When he saw the effects tests he gave Scott and the production his full blessing.

"full"? citation please. notoriously paranoid & curmudgeonly, & possibly only slightly more approachable than harlan ellison regarding screen treatments...

you still haven't convinced me that scott knew what he was doing with the story or the characters, but your reading of the unicorn element is making me think that there might be a layer to the story that scott didn't uncover for us. his tone.. the way he responds to questions about the flick in the various interviews about the various versions of it... doesn't suggest to me that he was aware of the various ways the evidence can be read. now I'll have to watch the damn thing again. which cut, though?

Mark Steels Stockbroker

Can I nominate Twin Peaks series 3 for this thread.

itsfredtitmus

Quote from: Mark Steels Stockbroker on July 01, 2018, 07:03:17 AM
Can I nominate Twin Peaks series 3 for this thread.
can i nominate not understanding lynch

jonbob

Quote from: a duncandisorderly on June 19, 2018, 03:29:14 PM
except for all the limited life-span stuff. no, he's a fucked-up human, just like in the book.
it's been a very long time since I read the book, but I thought there were no real animals or people and everyone was either self aware or delusional replicants.

Shit Good Nose

#76
Quote from: a duncandisorderly on June 24, 2018, 09:30:51 AM
"full"? citation please. notoriously paranoid & curmudgeonly, & possibly only slightly more approachable than harlan ellison regarding screen treatments...

Dangerous Days (the mammoth doc on the DVD/blu), Future Noir (Paul M. Sammon's excellent making-of book), and there are audio interviews with Dick that were conducted not long before his death (which also, interestingly, make it sound like he saw far more of the film than is normally reported) where he begrudgingly acknowledges that Scott was well on the right path (although not without some criticisms as well).  Plus Scott always said it was important to him that Dick was okay with it, which is why he showed Dick the test footage so early on in the production.  I also seem to remember reading/hearing that Dick was shown around the model shop by (or with) Syd Mead, but I might be conflating that with something else.


Quoteyou still haven't convinced me that scott knew what he was doing with the story or the characters, but your reading of the unicorn element is making me think that there might be a layer to the story that scott didn't uncover for us. his tone.. the way he responds to questions about the flick in the various interviews about the various versions of it... doesn't suggest to me that he was aware of the various ways the evidence can be read. now I'll have to watch the damn thing again. which cut, though?

And I don't see how you can still think Scott didn't know what he was doing when his intentions were VERY well documented all the way through the making of the film, and that he was very clear about leaving just enough of a question mark (not just the unicorn sequence, but also other subtle things throughout the film, like Deckard's own collection of photos), but in any case - the '92 director's cut (which isn't really a DC), or Final Cut (which IS Scott's own preferred director's cut, despite being put together based on his notes).

The general school of thought these days is that in the workprint and various theatrical versions Deckard is human, whilst in the 92 DC and Final Cut he is a replicant.

Replies From View

Quote from: a duncandisorderly on June 24, 2018, 09:30:51 AM
which cut, though?

Either the Director's Cut or the Final Cut, depending on whether you want errors like an obvious stunt double 'fixed'.

The Final Cut uses the teal and orange colour palette if I'm not mistaken, so you may just want to stick with the early 90s Director's Cut, even thought Scott didn't have much involvement in it.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: Replies From View on July 01, 2018, 01:57:32 PM
The Final Cut uses the teal and orange colour palette if I'm not mistaken, so you may just want to stick with the early 90s Director's Cut, even thought Scott didn't have much involvement in it.

Yeah, the 92 DC tends to be the one I watch most for this very reason.  FC isn't quite as bad as The Good, The Bad and The Ugly with how they fucked around with the colour palette, but it's too much of a change regardless.

Dr Rock

I like the voiceover, so it's the original release for me (I've seen all the others though).

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: itsfredtitmus on July 01, 2018, 07:48:17 AM
can i nominate not understanding lynch

I'm not convinced he understands himself half the time.

itsfredtitmus

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on July 01, 2018, 02:36:46 PM
I'm not convinced he understands himself half the time.
no need to talk of steel like that

mothman

Quote from: Shit Good Nose on July 01, 2018, 01:52:12 PM
I also seem to remember reading/hearing that Dick was shown around the model shop

And yet when I showed my dick around a model shop, I was banned for life. Double standards.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: mothman on July 01, 2018, 03:31:40 PM
And yet when I showed my dick around a model shop, I was banned for life. Double standards.

Pretty sure that was cos of the sores all around the base of the helmet, to be fair.

mothman

Getting the little decals on the sides of the German coalscuttle helmets was quite tricky, I'll admit. The Tamiya WW2 German kits always seemed to have them.

Icehaven

Contact (1997) How come they don't do a test launch with a dummy or a monkey or even just a load of recording equipment? The first one (that gets blown up by the suicide bomber) might have been a test but it isn't clear what's actually being sent and the presence of the original astronaut suggests he was actually going (and also allows for him to be conveniently killed.)
At the second one there's no suggestion there's been any tests at all, they just drop Jodie Foster hundreds of feet in an alien technology sphere without apparently even testing if a crash test dummy would make it (which it turns out it wouldn't as the human technology seat gets crushed.)

chveik


Bogbrainedmurphy

Right, in The Terminat... fuck it never mind.


kngen

OK, seeing as we've got all the BR heads in the same place -

when this picture 'moves'



it's the light from the floating advertising thingy shining through Deckard's blinds, not the shadows on the picture moving, isn't it?

This argument has been raging on between me and a friend for about 20 years now.

Shit Good Nose

Quote from: kngen on November 05, 2018, 01:35:22 PM
it's the light from the floating advertising thingy shining through Deckard's blinds, not the shadows on the picture moving, isn't it?

The movement is within the photo itself - the young Rachel moves slightly and you also momentarily hear the sound of children playing.

There are two schools of thought with regard to the execution - either it's an emotive thing that Deckard is experiencing (and therefore further suggesting that he's a replicant as he's sharing part of the same memory, or at least is engaging with its sentimentality), or it's an advanced photo that is able to show brief movement and play audio, a la the 3D investigation he does on the Esper machine with one of Roy's photos to find Zhora.  The former is much more satisfying in terms of Blade Runner mythos, but the latter is cited by Paul M Sammon in both the commentary and his book, so technically that is the correct answer.  Either way, it's also a direct reference to La Jetee, where a similar thing happens.