SNAM -- Blade Runner [Archive] - Quarter To Three Forums

Gladguy

01-20-2003, 12:53 PM

Those of you not near the Greater Toronto Area might not recognize SNAM (Saturday Night At the Movies), a great ol' TVOntario series that runs classic films uncut on Saturday nights, and has since 1974. Aside from the uncut format, SNAM now runs an Interview piece after each film, where principals and critics chat about the film, it's themes and it's contextual place in Hollywood's Pantheon. Pretty engaging stuff.

Anyways... Saturday night last was Blade Runner. I haven't seen the film in years, so I settled into the couch and enjoyed a screening of the director's cut (no voiceovers!).

This film still holds up after all these years -- not only as an amazingly shot film, but as an excellent (perhaps the best example of cinematic sci-fi. Engaging themes, social commentary, etc. Great stuff.

During the interview session, it was posited that the origami unicorn left for Deckard by Gaff is symbolic of Gaff's groking of Deckard's secret: that Deckard is actually a replicant himself! :shock:

Now, I've seen this movie 5 or so times. Each time, I pick out something I haven't seen before. But I have never sensed that Deckard is a replicant. Never.

How about you? :?

Desslock

01-20-2003, 01:00 PM

Now, I've seen this movie 5 or so times. Each time, I pick out something I haven't seen before. But I have never sensed that Deckard is a replicant. Never. How about you? :?

In the Directors' cut it's relatively clear that Deckard is a replicant (because of the unicorn dream, which does not appear in the theatrical release).

Also, Ridley Scott stated, in several interviews at the time the Directors' cut was released, that Deckard was a replicant, removing any remaining ambiguity.

graller

01-20-2003, 01:01 PM

I have heard the theory as well. I would be disappointed if it was true. I also heard the end of the movie was Hollywood-ized and was much grimmer in the book.

Desslock

01-20-2003, 01:05 PM

I have heard the theory as well. I would be disappointed if it was true. I also heard the end of the movie was Hollywood-ized and was much grimmer in the book.

Deckard was definitely intended to be a Replicant. Here's a statement to that effect from Ridley Scott:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/825641.stm

Troy S Goodfellow

01-20-2003, 01:45 PM

Jason Becker

01-20-2003, 02:20 PM

If he really was a replicant then it doesn't make much sense that he isn't as physically strong/fast as the others.

Still a great movie. I liked the change to the ending of the directors cut, but did miss the narration. I actually liked that myself. I wish their was a DVD version of the theatrical release.

Bub, Andrew

01-20-2003, 02:29 PM

If he really was a replicant then it doesn't make much sense that he isn't as physically strong/fast as the others.

Yeah it does, weren't those replicants some sort of special dangerous military models? I presume Sean Young wasn't very fast or strong either, even though in real life, I hear, she is.

Jakub

01-20-2003, 02:31 PM

Gladguy

01-20-2003, 02:38 PM

One thing I absolutely don't get abuot the original Deckard = replicant theories is even if Deckard was one of the six who smuggled himself onto Earth, how come he has no memory of this? I remember getting into huge arguments about that. I bought into the unicorn thing but never the one about Deckard being the sixth.
Exactly.

Cuz if Deckard is the 6th "skin job" then why would Bryant be pulling him back in to hunt them down? What about the references to "I was quit the last time I walked out of this office... I'm doubly quit now." or "I need you Deckard, you're the best there is." That whole scene just doesn't work if Deckard is a replicant.

I can see him getting his ass whooped if he's an older model. Fine. The rest of it just doesn't ring true for me. But why would he turn on the others who he escaped with? Why wouldn't Roy make reference to escaping together when he's a) kicking his ass or b) just about to power down?

I took the origami unicorn and Gaff's "everybody dies" line to mean that Gaff knew Deckard was in love with Rachel, and he was turning a blind eye to Deckard's inappropriate relations (she wasn't a pleasure model, was she? :wink: )

I dunno. This theory (and Scott's apparent "confession") really ruin things for me.

Bah.

Kevin Perry

01-20-2003, 04:15 PM

Why does he have to be one of the six?

If they make pleasure models, military models, etc., why wouldn't they make a cop model too?

And you say that they kicked his ass-- heck, he took them all out, after a few beatings, of course.

Looks like they built him awfully well.

KP

Ben Sones

01-20-2003, 04:45 PM

Whatever Scott says, the movie itself makes it fairly ambiguous. It's never made clear that he is, it just hints at it in an incredibly subtle fashion.

In any event, the Director's Cut has a grimmer ending that the theatrical release did. In the theatrical release, Ford does a last voice-over explaining that Rachael has no termination date, thus giving us a "they lived happily ever after" sort of ending. The Director's Cut does away with that, to the movie's benefit.

Great film. One of my all-time favorites, in fact, and easily the best film that Scott has ever done.

Desslock

01-20-2003, 05:57 PM

Great film. One of my all-time favorites, in fact, and easily the best film that Scott has ever done.

I'd have to give that accolade to Alien, but it's close.

As Kevin indicated, the film doesn't suggest he's one of the Nexus 6 -- he's just another replicant who, like Rachel, isn't aware that he's a replicant. He's probably worked as a Blade Runner for some time, and clearly has an established home, etc. Aside from the Unicorn dream, there's other hints that Deckard is a replicant -- he has the "reflective, cat-like" eyes of the replicants in several scenes, and his house is full of photographs that are similar to those found with Leon.

The only thing to suggest he's one of the 6 is the fact that Roy (Rutger Hauer) knows Deckard's name in the confrontation in J.F. Sebastian's house, when he is never told it (and has no reason to know of Deckard) prior to that event (Leon hears Deckard's name after the first replicant is killed, but he's killed right after that event by Rachel). I'm not sure how to explain that, but think the movie didn't intend to suggest he was one of the 6.

The theatrical version also shows forested countryside, which makes no sense in the context of the rest of the setting (why would common wilderness animals like snakes be essentially non-existent if there were still tracks of wilderness in the world).

The product placement in the movie is great, with some nice Atari signs, as well as companies like Koss and Coca-cola. Amazing design work by Syd Mead (who also did a fantastic job with designs in Wing Commander Prophecy, which could have been the best game in the series if EA hadn't sabotaged its design in mid-development). It's a shame he hasn't done more work for films (or games) - he also did art design in Tron, and some in Aliens and the first Star Trek movie.

Stefan

Supertanker

01-20-2003, 06:08 PM

If you would like a flak-laden tour of some of the locations, download this Blade Runner-inspired UT2003 map (http://www.fileplanet.com/files/110000/118901.shtml). It is an excellent piece of work, but a major system hog. I would get slight hangs all the time as I moved around, and that is with 512MB of system memory and a 128MB GF4. I don't know how long it took to create this map, but the level of detail is amazing.

Jakub

01-20-2003, 06:18 PM

(who also did a fantastic job with designs in Wing Commander Prophecy, which could have been the best game in the series if EA hadn't sabotaged its design in mid-development). It's a shame he hasn't done more work for films (or games) - he also did art design in Tron, and some in Aliens and the first Star Trek movie.

Stefan

What did EA change in mid-development?

Desslock

01-20-2003, 06:30 PM

(who also did a fantastic job with designs in Wing Commander Prophecy, which could have been the best game in the series if EA hadn't sabotaged its design in mid-development).

What did EA change in mid-development?

The story into about one-third of what was intended, primarily. They had to stop all work on the movie portion of the game and just piece together a story from what they had already. Multiplayer was also cut, although that may have been in spite of EA's wishes, not because of it. They weren't even given time to code capital ship explosions, heh (they just sit there when dead). The budget for the game was cut at least in half mid-development.

They had an incredibly optimized engine (that was smoother and looked miles better than the engine in WC4, and yet actually ran faster), a pretty interesting storyline, huge capital ships and some great art design by Syd Mead, yet the developers were unable to finish almost every aspect of the game (other than the gameplay engine). The soaring development costs of WC4 are somewhat to blame, but WCP was more modestly budgeted to begin with, and a game that could have been an all-time classic was instead just a decent title.

graller

01-20-2003, 07:17 PM

Why wouldn't Deckard have a termination date as well then. It certainly implies he had been around longer?

Desslock

01-20-2003, 07:42 PM

Why wouldn't Deckard have a termination date as well then. It certainly implies he had been around longer?

Not a Nexus 6, who/which were built super-strong and intelligent "the candle that burns twice as bright, burns half as long". That was described as a feature of that series.

Plus the film is ambiguous as to whether he has a termination date.

Anonymous

01-20-2003, 08:12 PM

It's better left ambiguous. You can't tell, that's the point.

Kool Moe Dee

01-20-2003, 09:19 PM

The story into about one-third of what was intended, primarily. They had to stop all work on the movie portion of the game and just piece together a story from what they had already. Multiplayer was also cut, although that may have been in spite of EA's wishes, not because of it. They weren't even given time to code capital ship explosions, heh (they just sit there when dead). The budget for the game was cut at least in half mid-development.

They had an incredibly optimized engine (that was smoother and looked miles better than the engine in WC4, and yet actually ran faster), a pretty interesting storyline, huge capital ships and some great art design by Syd Mead, yet the developers were unable to finish almost every aspect of the game (other than the gameplay engine). The soaring development costs of WC4 are somewhat to blame, but WCP was more modestly budgeted to begin with, and a game that could have been an all-time classic was instead just a decent title.

Man, that's really sad. I actually liked WC:P a lot (got it as a Christmas gift, but opened it early :D ), and I remember being really wowed by the graphics at the time. Then Freespace came out, and, well, pretty much blew it away.

Was the downloadable content that came later an attempt to salvage the rest of the game?

Jakub

01-20-2003, 09:22 PM

The story into about one-third of what was intended, primarily. They had to stop all work on the movie portion of the game and just piece together a story from what they had already. Multiplayer was also cut, although that may have been in spite of EA's wishes, not because of it. They weren't even given time to code capital ship explosions, heh (they just sit there when dead). The budget for the game was cut at least in half mid-development.

They had an incredibly optimized engine (that was smoother and looked miles better than the engine in WC4, and yet actually ran faster), a pretty interesting storyline, huge capital ships and some great art design by Syd Mead, yet the developers were unable to finish almost every aspect of the game (other than the gameplay engine). The soaring development costs of WC4 are somewhat to blame, but WCP was more modestly budgeted to begin with, and a game that could have been an all-time classic was instead just a decent title.

I remember it being shorter, but it's still a fairly long game. Multiplayer I didn't care about at the time.

I know the engine was amazing. I mean, it ran good even on my P133/32MB EDO. Minimum spec was supposed to be a P166.

Sigh... That's a franchise that needs resurrection.

voltaic

01-20-2003, 09:25 PM

I like to think he wasn't a replicant but because of his time spent basically as a replicant hunter, he became like that which he hunted. Kind of like the line by Eliot Ness in "The Untouchables" which went "I have become that which I hate and am content that I have done right." He became less and less emotional (a sign of the replicants) as the movie went on.

OTOH it isn't far our to think that the humans would have ganked or built a replicant to hunt the others, the idea being he thinks the way they do. Then give him "human" memories and don't tell him or have anyone hunt him.

Chris Floyd

01-21-2003, 09:01 AM

The theatrical version also shows forested countryside, which makes no sense in the context of the rest of the setting (why would common wilderness animals like snakes be essentially non-existent if there were still tracks of wilderness in the world).

I heard that this shot was taken from some other pretty well-known film. But now I can't recall which one, or even if I heard that from a reputable source. I'm sure some web-browsing could answer the question for the curious.

It's a shame he hasn't done more work for films (or games) - he also did art design in Tron, and some in Aliens and the first Star Trek movie.

You should play Maelstrom (http://www.the-underdogs.org/game.php?name=Maelstrom), which feaures "futurism" by Mead. No, wait. You really shouldn't play Maelstrom. Trust me.

Bokonon

01-21-2003, 09:59 AM

I heard that this shot was taken from some other pretty well-known film. But now I can't recall which one, or even if I heard that from a reputable source. I'm sure some web-browsing could answer the question for the curious.

It was stock footage from The Shining. Kubrick always took reels and reels of extra footage.

Met_K

01-21-2003, 10:48 AM

Reels and reels is an understatement, he holds the world record for most film used on average per shoot. Or something like that. God knows that Strangelove used up millions of miles of tape.

Jason McMaster

01-21-2003, 11:26 AM

But it was worth it. Strangelove is my all time favorite movie.

Jason Becker

01-22-2003, 12:38 PM

"Yeah it does, weren't those replicants some sort of special dangerous military models? I presume Sean Young wasn't very fast or strong either, even though in real life, I hear, she is."

Well even Daryll Hannahs 'pleasure model' is very athletic and strong(when she does the flips and is crushing his head between her legs) and can take temprature extremes. Saying Deckard isn't beacuse he's an earlier model is weak IMO. Wouldn't they want a "replicant hunter" replicant to have those traits?. To me making wether he's a replicant or not ambiguous till the end and wanting to make it so its a question makes the film have noticable flaws, besides the physical stuff which others have mentioned.

Chris Nahr

01-22-2003, 01:47 PM

Yeah, Deckard being a replicant really doesn't pan out with his total non-performance in replicant hunting. Let's see, the first he only gets because she was interrupted while mauling him. The second would've killed him except for Sean Young. The third he actually killed on his own, with some luck... but that was the "pleasure model." The fourth just let him live when he was already defeated.

Um, excuse me? Deckard being a replicant makes absolutely no sense, unless the police department deliberately chose the most incompetent replicant they could get their hands on...

Anonymous

01-25-2003, 09:13 PM

Remember how Rachel was the first Nexxus 6 to feature memory implants? Deckard's a similar introduction, and he's technically illegal because replicants aren't supposed to reside on Earth. That's why Gaff - the real Blade Runner - is always following, monitoring and presupposing his actions in case he turns rogue. When Deckard carries out the gun in the final shot, it's not just for Rachel; Gaff didn't have any problems bringing him into custody before, it shouldn't be difficult for him to retrieve two rogue replicant prototypes.

Leon (the replicant Rachel shoots) beats Deckard to a bloody mess but fails to kill him. No human could survive that beating, and you'd expect a Nexxus 6 designed for police work to last.

Chris Nahr

01-26-2003, 03:16 AM

Leon (the replicant Rachel shoots) beats Deckard to a bloody mess but fails to kill him. No human could survive that beating, and you'd expect a Nexxus 6 designed for police work to last.

Maybe, but surviving bloody beatings virtually unscathed is the rule for heroes in Hollywood films, not the exception...

Anonymous

01-26-2003, 03:45 AM

Hell, this is science fiction. Anything goes.

In any case, it's a film where mortal fragility is emphasised; you either die or just barely survive. Holden - the Runner Leon kills - hits the floor fast. Zhora gets splattered over several shop displays, and Pris breakdances into heaven like a poisoned fly. Deckard's close encounters with death leave him bruised and beaten, and he's not even man enough to swallow his loose teeth before he spits them out and tries to rape Sean Young.

Anonymous

01-28-2003, 05:09 AM

Any fan of games and Bladerunner should really try the Bladerunner adventure game from around 1997 by Westwood Studios. It has a great parallel storyline that takes the subtle elements from the movie and plays around with them. And the atmosphere in the game will be ecstasy to any BR fan for sure.

Anonymous

01-28-2003, 03:33 PM

I've always argued that the "Deckard is a replicant" revelation robs the story of all its power. The movie only makes moral sense if Deckard is a human being, one of the billions of "robotic" humans who have never taken two seconds to consider their fate or meaning in the nightmare world of the L.A. megalopolis.

The lesson of the story (if Deckard is a human) is actually quite powerful -- an encounter with mechanical creations who appreciate and crave life with far more passion than Deckard, who slouches through the brutal motions of his life with all the fatalism of any machine. All the power of Batty's final minutes comes from his heart-crushing envy of Deckard's humanity. The final realization -- "but then again, who does?" -- inspires Deckard to seize his own future.

Just a thought.

Sean Tudor

01-28-2003, 04:57 PM

Matthew Gallant

01-28-2003, 06:58 PM