Author Topic: Blade Runner  (Read 3832 times)

Jerzy Bondov

  • best not bother
    • righto so ive got five minutes off work and uh yeah im gonna have a cheeky volvic
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #60 on: March 10, 2021, 02:34:08 PM »
One criticism I do have for Blade Runner 2 is that during the final fight scene, Deckard looks like he's sitting on the bog doing a poo.

Blumf

  • Not long now
    • IGNORE ME!!!
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #61 on: March 10, 2021, 03:25:10 PM »
Is Deckard a replicant, or a replican?

No, we're bloody not going to break into the Tyrell building! We're going sit on our collective arses here and sulk. We're replican'ts, not replicans!

joaquin closet

  • that were diabolical
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #62 on: March 10, 2021, 03:59:24 PM »
My conception of Gosling - and tbf I haven’t seen a fair few of his most celebrated films (The Place Beyond the Pines, Blue Valentine, Half Nelson) - is that he’s great in comedies (The Nice Guys, Crazy Stupid Love, The Big Short) and bad in dramas (Drive, Blade Runner, First Man).

It’s his inexpressiveness, I think - comes across as deadpan funny in comedy but leaves a vacuum at the centre of his “serious” films.

Then again, maybe Refn/Villeneuve/Chazelle are to blame - in each case it does seem that a certain emotionless was what they wanted for/was required of their protagonists, and maybe I just don’t like films with a character like that at the centre. But I dunno if that’s true... I like inscrutability (see: Steven Yeun in Burning, my favourite male film performance of recent years - though he isn’t the protagonist, which is maybe why it works for me? Then again maybe not. I love Gabriel Byrne in Miller’s Crossing/all manner of other cool, calm and collected noir protagonists...). I don’t think I like a blank slate.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #63 on: March 10, 2021, 04:17:43 PM »
To be fair he doesn't really play "cool and collected" so much as emotionally detached and damaged. I felt it worked very well with Drive but since then has maybe had a tendency to be a bit more by the numbers? parts of BR 2049 do feel a little like that to me(maybe too smug?) but generally I think it works well.

I do think you could argue whilst the film as a whole didn't hold up as well Johansson in Ghost in the Shell gave a bit more interesting performance in a similar kind of role.

Bad Ambassador

  • Sit down, Mario!
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #64 on: March 10, 2021, 04:51:41 PM »
I thought BR49 was dismal as well, as I litigated at great length in the other thread with people who stated their opinions as facts.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #65 on: March 10, 2021, 05:17:49 PM »
There are dozens of us. DOZENS!

The worst thing about it is that it's not worse. It's just middling pap (and I don't accept any arguments about it being a breath of fresh air in a stagnant blockbuster landscape, or the like). It's a vastly bloated Black Mirror episode. Christopher Nolan, without even the benefit of high concept gimickry.

And it doesn't even look good.

Jerzy Bondov

  • best not bother
    • righto so ive got five minutes off work and uh yeah im gonna have a cheeky volvic
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #66 on: March 10, 2021, 05:20:36 PM »
They should do a Studio Cut of Blade Runner 2, with a voiceover and a happy ending. I'd watch that.

Chedney Honks

  • When life gives u no hair, ball spin
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #67 on: March 10, 2021, 05:36:09 PM »
Neil doesn't want want megathreads.

He's said that time and time again for nearly two decades.

This thread is for 'Blade Runner'.



Dex Sawash

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Upphängningspunkterna
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #68 on: March 10, 2021, 06:00:25 PM »

CaB got me very hyped up to see 2049 in cinema, didn't like it much so I went again a week later. Later, I rewatched original BR and decided I didn't like it all that much either.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #69 on: March 10, 2021, 07:27:59 PM »
Which parts are incoherent? I would say if anything the script is a bit simplistic in terms of the basic narrative but there's so much else going on that for me it doesn't harm the film.

Specifically the total shaggy dog story that is, "is Decker a replicant?" We're given hints that are so gentle as to be practically non-existent and yet we're supposed to go, "ooh, isn't it mysterious, isn't it profound". No. It's just bad storytelling. We're given no reason to care for him, particularly, so hinting very very very slightly that He Is Not What He Appears just doesn't land. If there were something about his character for us to latch on to, perhaps this would work. But he's just a cipher, so whether his humanity is natural or artificial means nothing.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #70 on: March 10, 2021, 09:31:01 PM »
I don't think we're supposed to spunk ourselves over how mysterious or profound it is. It's just an extra thread to the overall question of what separates replicants from humans. And I think Deckard's characterisation is deliberately thin. Being a professional killer has left him an empty shell of a man, who only regains some measure of humanity when he learns to recognise it in the people he has dehumanised and murdered.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #71 on: March 11, 2021, 04:42:13 AM »
I mean the film isn't stuffed with plot points that make Deckard sympathetic the way the sequel is with K but I think its an effective character study of a disillusioned assassin.

Again to me beyond highlighting issues of class/slavery and general disillusionment with society I would say the intesion of the film overall is highlighting a post religious human situation, its full of religious symbols and Roy does seem very Nietzschian ubermensch who literally meets and kills his maker . So the Deckard Replicant reveal at the end I think becomes a way of showing that, its shown us that godless very mortal replicants have human worth and then turns that intension back on the lead character(who greets it with knowing resignation rather than shock) it also does so for the audience.

I wouldn't say the replicant reveal itself really changes the nature of the film that massively though, I think the same themes are there without it and I don't think theres any kind of whodunit mystery related to it bar perhaps the way Gaff relates to Deckard.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #72 on: March 11, 2021, 09:25:56 AM »
I don't think we're supposed to spunk ourselves over how mysterious or profound it is. It's just an extra thread to the overall question of what separates replicants from humans. And I think Deckard's characterisation is deliberately thin. Being a professional killer has left him an empty shell of a man, who only regains some measure of humanity when he learns to recognise it in the people he has dehumanised and murdered.

Yeah this is a really good explanation. It is almost redundant whether he is a replicant or not because he lost his humanity years ago. Either answer to the question has a lot to say about what it means to be human

As for Gosling I don't think inexpressive is the right word. It is more like minimal. I find a lot of his performances, Drive in particular, are full of emotion but it is all in the eyes and microexpressions. Similar to the thread about OTT performances being over-valued in acting I think the sort of performance Gosling gives in Drive is much more impressive than scenery chewing because it must be really hard to gauge the difference between a subtle expression and something that is invisible to the camera

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #73 on: March 11, 2021, 09:53:17 AM »
The first film is the story of a dehumanised (possibly literally) killer who gradually comes to realise he's murdering runaway slaves who are at least as human as he is, and then rebels against the system the only plausible way he can.

The sequel is about a killer who stumbles onto a conspiracy that's kept Robot Jesus hidden and then has to deal with the disappointment of realising he's just John the Baptist. Also, Robot Jesus' dad is hanging out in Las Vegas.

I'm not saying the first story is better than the second, but if you're really keen on SF messiahs Dune is probably going to do it better.

*edit* slightly more seriously, I think the strength of the first film lies in part with the fact it's a fairly basic story that can be easily explained and understood (man who hunts charismatic robots starts to realise he might be the bad guy) and all the skill lies in the execution (across the board - BR is full of quotable lines whereas BR 2049 has... I'll get back to you).

The second film is a bit harder to summarise - he's a robot detective who is trying to track down a robot / human hybrid ahead of an evil corporation... then he starts to wonder if he is the hybrid and then he tracks down the hybrid's dad who the corporation kidnaps so he has to rescue him - and the more sprawling, uneven nature of it means there's probably going to be stretches that aren't to your taste.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #74 on: March 11, 2021, 10:01:00 AM »
Yeah this is a really good explanation. It is almost redundant whether he is a replicant or not because he lost his humanity years ago.
If Deckard is a replicant, what's not to say he's only been alive a very short time?

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #75 on: March 11, 2021, 11:14:51 AM »
As for Gosling I don't think inexpressive is the right word. It is more like minimal. I find a lot of his performances, Drive in particular, are full of emotion but it is all in the eyes and microexpressions. Similar to the thread about OTT performances being over-valued in acting I think the sort of performance Gosling gives in Drive is much more impressive than scenery chewing because it must be really hard to gauge the difference between a subtle expression and something that is invisible to the camera

"Ryan Gosling acts like a girl", I do wonder whether that kind of thing can come down to how people read that kind of expression? I spose its a bit arrogant claiming some kind of higher emotional intelligence that many could say is just invented but the ability to read subtle expressions does seem like a strong divide between how people might view such performances.

Again I do think theres two aspects to the sequel, the mystery robot jesus thriller aspect but also the focus on K's own life which seems rather less straight forward. That it doesnt just end up as a tail of mmisery of someone almost totally dis-empowered forced to kill under threat of death but rather how he relates to a female character he seemingly gets to have power over. I felt there was more to be explored there than we ultimately got in the end.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #76 on: March 11, 2021, 11:32:10 AM »
If Deckard is a replicant, what's not to say he's only been alive a very short time?

The only part of the "Deckard is a replicant" theory that ever seemed interesting to me was the idea that the first time we see him in the film is the first time he's switched on - he was activated when the first Blade Runner was shot at Tyrell HQ

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #77 on: March 11, 2021, 11:36:31 AM »
I would say beyond being a cap on the "replicants are people" plot the main way it might change how you view the film a little is how Gaff relates to Deckard, there is a kind of knowing arrogance to him that's maybe better explained by that situation. Maybe Tyrell as well I spose testing his implanted memories by having one replicant with them test another and then reveal the process to him that he still doesn't pickup on.

I really don't think its sposed to be a eureka moment that switches our view of what we've seen before though.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #78 on: March 11, 2021, 11:36:56 AM »
The only part of the "Deckard is a replicant" theory that ever seemed interesting to me was the idea that the first time we see him in the film is the first time he's switched on - he was activated when the first Blade Runner was shot at Tyrell HQ
I have wondered about that, whether he was turned on as soon as it was known Batty and his crew were heading to Earth. Though they did film (and cut) a scene of Deckard talking to the Blade Runner who was shot by Leon, and (as I remember it) there appeared to be an element of long-standing familiarity there.

Tyrel suggests that the process of implanting memories is pretty new (hence Deckard not knowing about it), so if he was a replicant, he must be a recent activation.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #79 on: March 11, 2021, 12:15:05 PM »
If Deckard is a replicant, what's not to say he's only been alive a very short time?

Yeah sorry I meant if he is human he lost his humanity years ago and if he is a replicant he never had any so either way his journey is one of (re)discovering his humanity

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #80 on: March 11, 2021, 01:14:30 PM »
they did film (and cut) a scene of Deckard talking to the Blade Runner who was shot by Leon, and (as I remember it) there appeared to be an element of long-standing familiarity there.
The police chief seems to know him pretty well too. I guess he could be playing along with the false memory thing, but it seems like a stretch.

If I remember right, Deckard possibly being a replicant was basically an afterthought that Ridley Scott had. The unicorn dream was footage spliced in from Legend[1], not something that was shot for BR and left on the cutting room floor. That said, this thread has made me realise that I've never actually seen the theatrical cut in its entirety, so I've no idea how the scene with Deckard waking up was originally meant to play out.

One thing that's most certainly not ambiguous is that the end credits music is ace (and a million times better than Hans Zimmer's tossed off dreck). On the other hand, the swoony 'love theme' is utterly inappropriate for what is very clearly a scene depicting rape.
 1. Scott's 1985 fantasy film, not the Gary biopic, starring Tom Hardy

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #81 on: March 11, 2021, 01:39:04 PM »
Scott had actually been working on ideas for legend since the 70's I believe and that footage was test shots for FX that was made in time to be included to Blade Runner.

You can hear the love theme does shift with Deckard turns violent towards her which I always took to be showing he's not be redeemed fully, he can be charming right from the start but theres a violence in him from his profession.

buzby

  • Member
  • **
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #82 on: March 11, 2021, 01:39:23 PM »
If I remember right, Deckard possibly being a replicant was basically an afterthought that Ridley Scott had. The unicorn dream was footage spliced in from Legend, not something that was shot for BR and left on the cutting room floor.
Scott had actually been working on ideas for legend since the 70's I believe and that footage was test shots for FX that was made in time to be inclined to Blade Runner.
<QI KLAXON>
No it wasn't - the Legend thing is an urban myth. The unicorn footage was shot in January 1982 at Black Park near Pinewood (it was the second to last scene to be shot - the final shoot being of Ford and Young in the car for the 'happy ending') for inclusion in the film but as Scott had lost control of the edit after going over-schedule and over-budget and the new producers didn't like the idea it was vetoed. Most of the original footage was then lost, and by the time the Director's Cut was being assembled only one outtake could be found, which was cleaned up and edited back into the film.
http://www.brmovie.com/FAQs/BR_FAQ_Unicorn.htm
The page in Future Noir that this references is part of an interview with Terry Rawlings about seaching for the cut footage to be put back into the Director's Cut. The outtake was discovered in Rank's film vault in London - Scott and Rawlings edited Blade Runner in Pinewood.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2021, 01:49:35 PM by buzby »

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #83 on: March 11, 2021, 01:46:40 PM »
<QI KLAXON>
No it wasn't - the Legend thing is an urban myth. The unicorn footage was shot in 1982 for inclusion in the film but as Scott had lost control of the edit after going over-schedule and over-budget and the new producers didn't like the idea it was vetoed. Most of the original footage was then lost, and by the time the Director's Cut was being assembled only one outtake could be found, which was cleaned up and edited back into the film.
http://www.brmovie.com/FAQs/BR_FAQ_Unicorn.htm

I spose the best argument against that is ultimately that the films were made by different studios who likely wouldn't be keen on such use but I wouldn't be supprised if ideas around Legend at least had an effect in what was choosen. At any rate that was Scott's original idea for the film not something added retrospectively for the directors cut.

Gaff's use of origami to comment on Deckard before that as well does I think show a pretty clear setup.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #84 on: March 11, 2021, 02:10:15 PM »
I did think that the origami unicorn seemed like an awfully convenient coincidence, if the dream footage wasn't an intended part of the film - even if Scott just really liked unicorns. Now I know better.

BR is full of quotable lines whereas BR 2049 has... I'll get back to you
This, very poorly paraphrased, bit was actually decent:
Quote
Ugly bloke: "The [world changing event that you have to watch a bunch of short films to know about] wiped out all the photos of me as a baby."
K "Shame. You must have been adorable."
That's it, though.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2021, 02:25:19 PM by Claude the Racecar Driving Rockstar Super Sleuth »

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #85 on: March 11, 2021, 02:25:41 PM »
Glitch, please!

buzby

  • Member
  • **
Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #86 on: March 11, 2021, 03:44:20 PM »
This, very poorly paraphrased, bit was actually decent:
Quote
Ugly bloke: "The [world changing event that you have to watch a bunch of short films to know about] wiped out all the photos of me as a baby."
K "Shame. You must have been adorable."
That's it, though.
Only one of the short films covered the Blackout.

Other memorable quotes:
Quote
Joi : Mere data makes a man. A and C and T and G. The alphabet of you. All from four symbols. I am only two: 1 and 0.
'K' : Half as much but twice as elegant, sweetheart.
Quote
'K' : You worked with Officer Deckard, back in the day. What can you tell me about him?
Gaff : He liked to work alone. So did I. So we worked together to keep it that way, and that was it.
Quote
(After realising he is getting nowhere trying to fight K)
Deckard : I like this song. We could keep at this or we could get a drink.
[pause]
'K' : I'll take the drink.
And in one of my favourite scenes in the film:
Quote
'K' : She likes him
Luv : Who?
'K' : This officer Deckard. She's trying to provoke him.
Luv : It is invigorating being asked personal questions. Make one feel... desired.
[pause]
Luv : Do you enjoy your work, officer?
'K' : ['K' gives her a look]  Please thank Mr. Wallace for your time.


Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #87 on: March 11, 2021, 03:53:22 PM »
I would say the sequel actually goes more for(whether it succeeds or not questable I spose) quotable dialog, the original its really Roy and Tyrell that tend to speak in that fashion, besides them the rest of the cast tends to stick more to simple naturalistic lines, maybe Deckard telling Rachael about her memories goes a bit grander. I think keeping the noir style dialog limited to a view lines like "I'm not in the business, I am the business" or "I was quit when I walked in here, I'm twice as quit now" works well.

Actually rewatched the original last night and it does stand out ever more just how tightly put together it is for an atmospheric somewhat arty film, there's not a wasted second to it when it isn't doing something interesting with the characters or visually.
« Last Edit: March 11, 2021, 04:21:25 PM by greenman »

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #88 on: March 11, 2021, 04:01:05 PM »
Quote
Luv : It is invigorating being asked personal questions. Make one feel... desired.
[pause]
Luv : Do you enjoy your work, officer?
That was at the front of my mind when I was thinking about how cack the rest of the dialogue is.

Re: Blade Runner
« Reply #89 on: March 12, 2021, 05:34:50 AM »
It may possibly just be me and my fondness for cheesy action one-liners, but "wake up - time to die" is a more memorable line than anything anyone says in BR 2049.

And then Roy Batty's final speech is on a whole 'nother level beyond that. It's bizarre to me that the makers of 2049 thought that in a sequel to Blade Runner the merely creepy and casually murderous Luv was going to be a suitable antagonist - though to be fair her character may have have been a similar case to the Terminator sequels, where Schwarzenegger would only come back so long as he was the star and there was no threat of the bad guy running away with a sequel the way he'd done with the original Terminator.

Tags: