No excitement here. I love "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?", but I've never been a fan of Blade Runner, nor do I think it needed a sequel.
Denis Villeneuve is a fucking great director, so he alone can get me excited for this. Harrison Ford... meh. Maybe Jake Gyllenhaal can play a blade runner Spoiler hunting for Deckard . OR... he can play a Replicant. I hope he's in this regardless of who he plays.
Whose "call" it is is irrelevant to my response. Furthermore, I don't imply anything contradictory to what you're typing here (so you wrote a counterpoint to nothing, or what?) I make it clear that I agree with Ford's opinion on it. THAT is what he took away from the character and THAT is what I take away from it. Deckard is human. I understand Scott's desire to muddy the water, and if you or anyone else want to believe he's potentially something different, then fine, but I don't get the "maybe he's a replicant!" vibe any time I watch it. You have your opinion on it, and that's fine. I have mine, so deal with it. Aaaaaand you answered my follow up post after the fact, so you understand why I posted what I did. Yes, I know how old the movie is. It was brand new when I was a kid. BULLSHIT about Star Wars. ANH is well contained within its 2hr time frame. If it never got a sequel, it still has a beginning, middle, and end that makes sense. If nothing is ever written about it again, the story can still be enough on its own to entertain.
It's not an opinion. Ford's "opinion" is not an opinion. The movie's story is stated fact. If I say the Governor of California is a human being, and you say he is from Mars, that is not a difference of opinion. One statement is true and the other is not. I don't know what that has to do with anything. All that is being said is that it's silly to complain about "spoilers" with something everyone has known for decades. What is your problem? I agree the first Star Wars COULD have remained self-contained, but Lucas wrote it with the idea of continuing it FROM DAY ONE. And it was structured after the old continuing movie serials. This is not new information to anyone. Star Wars was designed to be continued. Blade Runner was written as a self-contained story with a beginning, middle, and end. Continuing it after having made its point is like continuing Moby Dick.
ANH was made with sequels in mind; ROTJ was not. After Anakin defeats the Emperor and restores balance to the force, fulfilling his destiny as the Chosen One - that's the conclusion of the story. It isn't left open-ended like ANH. Episode VII is my all time most anticipated movie, but it's about as pointless as a Blade Runner sequel. Both Star Wars and Blade Runner have made their point. That doesn't mean sequels can't or shouldn't be made.
Yes, it is an opinion. Opinion - a belief, judgment, or way of thinking about something : what someone thinks about a particular thing And knowing is half the battle... Ford feels Deckard is human. I agree. It's ambiguous whether he is or is not. I don't feel he's portrayed as a replicant. If he is, then he's the most emotive and flawed of each one portrayed in the movie. But then Ford played him like a human because that's how he felt about the character. This governor example? Non-sequitur. Subjective opinion. Irrelevant. Your opinion was that the movies that have sequels didn't need them, Star Wars being the exception. There are quite a number of movies written in the manner SW is, i.e. the author creates a "bible" for their story in order to ground it better. But just because it's set up that way does not mean it will get treated with additional fanfare. Who said it was? Again, there are plenty of stories which are set up in this manner. OK, so - 1 at the ticket window.
He played him as human because the character BELIEVED himself to be human. Like Rachel did. That's the entire point. He went the entire movie believing himself to be human until Gaff left the unicorn, mirroring Deckard describing Rachel's spider story that she never revealed to anyone.
Again, bullshit. 1.If he's a replicant, then he's an older model. The newest one, Rachel, expresses far less emotions than he does, yet she is the most emotive of all of the confirmed replicants in the movie. Deckard is extremely emotive, whether it's about being happy, disgusted, frantic, or panicked. No other replicants express the range of emotions he does, pain being the one that sticks out the most. Look at Roy and how all the emotions mess with his state of mind. Unless he focused on his goal of surviving longer or combat, he starts coming apart. 2. Bryant had employed Deckard for years. If he's an older model, then WTF is he doing working for law enforcement? Also, why allow such an emotive unit to be employed in this job? It's counterproductive to have an individual who works as a hunter of rogue units to have emotional issues which could interfere with eliminating said rogues. I mean, you're just setting yourself up for defeat by doing that. 3. The origami - Gaff makes them. We know he does. The Unicorn one can just as easily be interpreted as coincidence. I've had similar instances with dreams I've had about places I've never been to only to find out that they are actual locations, or events that occur in a dream which happened later in life. The giant blue building I can see out my window is a perfect example - I had a single dream about it many years before it was built. Unicorn Symbolism & Unicorn Meaning In World Tradtions & Literature History of the Unicorn Symbol The unicorn is one of a very few mythological creatures that are considered to be beneficial in almost all traditions. The unicorn is universally beautiful, mysterious and difficult to capture or tame. The Unicorn to me has always been about Rachel. Her expiration date is unknown. 4. Rachel is the only one who has pre-implanted memories. She's an experiment. If Deckard is an older model replicant, he should be carrying around photographs of other people for unknown reasons, like Leon.
You don't know when he was born. How long has it been since you saw this movie and thought about the concepts? He could have been manufactured 5 minutes before the beginning of the movie. lol because he says so?! Come on. Watch the movie again with your brain turned on. The unicorn has no relation to Rachel. On the other hand, we see that the unicorn is a recurring dream for Deckard. It's more than coincidence. In all versions of the movie, Deckard sees Gaff's unicorn and remembers his quote about not living forever.
Or he's a 40yr old man, i.e. YOU don't know either. Rachel is the experiment. It's stated quiet clearly. Her range of emotions are more complex than the others, yet she's much more subdued than Deckard, who is not only capable of a myriad of different emotions, but able to deal with them as well. Replicants were going nuts when they experienced too many. Worry less about what turns my mind on, please. Either present counterpoints of substance, or let it go and accept that I perceive the movie differently. That's YOUR perception. I'm not telling you to think anything differently. Wrap your mind around that concept and accept that my opinion is different. And there's one in Sebastian's apartment as well. Note: At this point, you're attacking my opinion and perception of the movie. You're not contesting the points I made with anything that contradicts the information presented on screen.
Blade Runner is now on HBO On Demand. Time to sit down and watch this this again, and possibly take notes, lol.
In fact, I do know. Because the person who told the story, who ran the movie, told me. He told all of us. The one person whose call it was to make told us unequivocally.
"You don't know when he was born....He could have been manufactured 5 minutes before the beginning of the movie." I'm sorry, so Scott says Ford's character is roughly 10 min old? He states the exact timeframe when he's "born?" Link please. It's either "could have" or "is", so please choose your verbs accordingly. In the end, my perception of the movie is still different. When I watch it, I see Deckard as human. Accept it and move on, or keep arguing. I'll be here all night.
99.9% agree with you that he was human - my difference is that I believe he was the template used to create the next gen replicant - I base this off the the interview given to Sean Young in the Tyrell office, plus the Owner of the Tyrell Corp so eager to speak with Deckard -ie see if the "blueprint" can break the creation based off him. Base the next replicant off the person best suited to identify and retire them. Also - there is no way Deckard could have been created just prior to the movie. The fact that Edward James Almos comes to him with orders to arrest him from Chief Brian to get him back to HQ to force him back on the squad indicates people know him, and know of him as a blade runner. My 0.01 is that he possibly could be a replicant of a real life Decker that was killed, and somehow the replicant Decker had real Decker's memories implanted.
Did I say that? Please stop grasping at straws. Scott says that in the movie that he made, the character of Deckard was a replicant. That's the end of the discussion. It's not an argument. It's not an opinion. That's the story. If you don't like it or wish it was different, that's fine. That's your business. But you don't get to decide the story of someone else's movie. Go make your own movie.
Sept 14, 2007 Wired Magazine / Wired.com had an interview with Scott. Scott does in fact say that Decker is/was a Replicant. Even states that Ford no longer states that Decker was Human.
Yes, you did, which how I quoted you. For fuck's sake, I get that, but just like any other form of art, interpretation is up to the viewer. I can watch the damn movie and not feel like Deckard is a replicant. THAT is the end of the discussion, but if you want to keep arguing, I'll be here all night. Glad we agree. I'm not deciding anything other than my perception of the movie I watch, so again, this is a counterpoint to what, exactly?
No I did not. I said that Deckard could have been manufactured at any point before the opening shot of the movie. Could have been as recently as that day. He'd have no way of knowing or telling the difference. I did not say Scott stated the time of Deckard's manufacture. Your perception being mistaken. Don't forget this all started because you complained about someone "spoiling" something that has been known and on the record for years and years.
