Reply With QuoteAgreed. It has more in common with the restoration of footage (originally intended to be there!) to Lawrence of Arabia.Originally Posted by Tom Chick
Veering off the Blade Runner debate and back onto the original topic: Who is in the plane at the end of Limbo?
Agreed. It has more in common with the restoration of footage (originally intended to be there!) to Lawrence of Arabia.
I don't know. It seems like an argument can be (and is being) made that the changes were revisionist... maybe not in the same way as Greedo shooting first, but in the same way as... oh, putting the scene with Han and Jabba back into Star Wars, or making old, dead Anakin look like Christensen at the end of Return of the Jedi.
I mean, we know the studio did some dumb stuff, like the voice-over.
But it sounds like it wasn't just the studio fighting against Deckard being a replicant. It sounds like it was damned near everyone rejecting the idea except for Scott. Sounds like someone's making the case it was his John-Peters-and-the-Giant-Spider moment, eh?
And I'll call him on it, too, because the only thing robot about Deckard is Harrison Ford's monotone voice-over. :)
As this thread demonstrates, an argument can be made for pretty much anything. The trick is supporting the argument. It's the difference between Musashi and the people in this thread arguing with him. Ridley Scott shot a movie about a dude who's a replicant. There's plenty of evidence to back this. Suggesting otherwise requires ignoring a whole lot of evidence.
-Tom
See, now we're talking ambiguity! The movie makes no statement about this. The question is entirely up to the viewer. To me, it doesn't matter. What matters is, quite literally, where the other characters are standing when the movie ends.
A friend of mine who posts here as spacemonkey once remarked that Limbo is a movie that distills the human condition down to whether you can trust Kris Kristofferson. :)
-Tom
Roflmao. I support my argument and he hand-waves it away! Twice.
Who cares? It's what on screen that counts, and the original theatrical version is ambiguous. And just so everyone is clear on this:Ridley Scott shot a movie about a dude who's a replicant. There's plenty of evidence to back this. Suggesting otherwise requires ignoring a whole lot of evidence.
The theatrical release muted the point so that it's arguably an unanswered question.
-Tom Chick
I don't have time to find the URL but there is a fansite/blog about the Thing by one of the producers and he dropped what I considered a huge bombshell on me about the point above that I had never really dwelt on: The shadow was Blair's and his whole act in the radio room was just that, so that iteration/version/part of the Thing could work on the spaceship in isolation. Mind blown.
Edit: I took the time. It's The Original Fan
Last edited by rhinohelix; 05-11-2012 at 08:57 PM.
Forget it, Jake. It's ChickNoirDeckardisaReplicantown.
Where did I write that? You're either misquoting or I misspoke. My point should have been that the theatrical release removed the plot point from the movie. As Blade Runner was originally released -- as opposed to how it was shot -- the question isn't answered because it isn't even asked!
-Tom
You have sixty seconds [clicks stop-watch] - go!
Spoiler: 15 second time deduction to read this hint:
Spoiler: 30 second time deduction to read this one
Backpeddle till you hearts crack and your backs break!My point should have been that the theatrical release removed the plot point from the movie.
-Argos, Jason and the Argonauts (from Corsair's Big Book of Familiar but Spurious Quotes)
(jusssssssst teasing)
It did not so much remove the plot point as hint at it without truly resolving it (i.e. it was left ambiguous). You spoke correctly. Also, it's kind of hard to misquote with a cut and paste - unless you misspoke and really meant I took it out of context, which I don't think I did (but those sixty seconds are up and I'm sure you found your own message).
I already answered that, though without directly replying to you (see msg 148 of this thread):As Blade Runner was originally released -- as opposed to how it was shot -- the question isn't answered because it isn't even asked!
"You know that Voight-Kampff test of yours. Did you ever take that test yourself?"
So yes, the subject is brought up for the viewer to think about.
I have no idea what point you think you've scored -- a link would have sufficed -- but rock on.
I was trying to be charitable to folks who wanted to bring up Blade Runner, because it's naturally confusing if you don't think of Blade Runner as two separate movies. But as I said, the theatrical release doesn't even care about the question, so it's odd to consider it an example of an unanswered question. The director's cut not only cares about the the question, but it answers it pretty definitively, so it's again odd to consider it an example of an unanswered question.
As for whatever point you think you scored by quoting a line from the movie in message 148, uh, well, that's certainly an unanswered question. You still haven't answered whether you like our owl.
-Tom
Both sides are clearly "ignoring" a lot of evidence, and constantly claiming something as a fact without being very clear about how that's actually a fact - only makes your position look ever weaker.
One thing is to arrogantly claim the unclaimable - another thing is to keep doing it because you can't stand losing face.
For the record, I'm not on a side - because it's obvious that there's no way to be certain at this point. It's the certainty I'm arguing against.
I thought I was on a side but apparently I'm not - I agree with everything Tom just said in post #281. But I still don't think Deckard being a replicant makes all that much sense in the grand scheme of things, though I guess that's not the discussion we're having.
Just having some fun - if you don't remember the reference, you seem to have a consistently convenient memory, so stay stoned.
A point that you seem to ignore at times by not mentioning which one you are referring to - the very issue that brought us to this moment.I was trying to be charitable to folks who wanted to bring up Blade Runner, because it's naturally confusing if you don't think of Blade Runner as two separate movies.
A subtle back-peddle: the question isn't answered because it isn't even asked! is what I just noted you had said. And of course, I pointed out where it was asked and now you transmogrify it to doesn't even care about the question. Well, it cared enough to ask, so I think that covers that aspect, too.But as I said, the theatrical release doesn't even care about the question...
Hand-waving isn't exactly a compelling argument. If the question is asked, but not answered (and I provided the exact quote which you chose to hand-wave away below), then that seems to me the very definition of an unanswered question. An answer is hinted at, but not conclusively. The Final Cut is not something that I am arguing about and have already noted that many times.so it's odd to consider it an example of an unanswered question. The director's cut not only cares about the the question, but it answers it pretty definitively, so it's again odd to consider it an example of an unanswered question.
The very question that you said the movie didn't ask. So, if you are keeping score (and apparently it concerns you greatly), you lost that point by default.As for whatever point you think you scored by quoting a line from the movie in message 148, uh, well, that's certainly an unanswered question.
Who the fuck are you? Who, who...You still haven't answered whether you like our owl.
Who's on first?
Drive's owls nuts!
You scared or sumthin? I would imagine Mr Musashi being perfectly capable of deciding for himself whether someone is worthy of a response or not, yes? And it's not rasslin', it's swordfighting. Him being Musashi and all.
But seriously. What cheap rhetoric. "My big brother is stronger than yours." Really? Come on.
An intriguing question ... well, a question with some relevance to the discussion at hand at least;
Anyone know anyone who has never seen the theatrical release, yet loves Blade Runner? Does Director's Cut work if you've never heard the voice-over, ever?
I've only ever watched the Director's Cut (though I saw snippets of the theatrical release years ago on TV). If you've never read the book it's certainly a bit more esoteric than your average sci-fi movie just because of the complexity and uniqueness of the setting, but I loved it. It's definitely a movie you ought to watch multiple times.
Tom, I'm still curious as to why you think Gaff felt the need to "announce his presence" to Deckard with the origami unicorn. Was it placed there solely for the sake of the audience? Was he trying to tell Deckard something? Surely by that point Deckard understood he was a replicant (or else what was the point of the movie)? And if he knew that, then wouldn't he also know that the people at the station knew? Why does Deckard smirk after seeing it?
I've read a dozen different theories on the matter but I'm curious as to which one you subscribe to.
This doesn't really answer your question, but I've only ever seen the Final Cut of the film, and to be honest, I'm not all that wild about it. Maybe I should check out the theatrical cut?
I am so not getting into this debate, but I've only ever seen the Director's Cut and I love Blade Runner. I have the Final Cut bluray release and have always been curious about this voiceover people complained about, but I've not gotten around to watching the theatrical version yet.
I don't blame you malkav11 for not getting into The Debate (yes, I think it's earned its capital letters by now), but thanks for the response from you and the other younglings ;-)
I don't have a theory about it, it was just something that occurred to me last night. Just finished watching Dangerous Days and it really makes you appreciate the film even more. So Anonymgeist, I'd suggest watching both the theatrical version and Dangerous Days, at the very least you'll get an understanding of the work involved in making a film like that "by hand", without cgi.
I'd have to watch the movie again. Gaff is kind of a cypher, isn't he? We assume he's just a police toady, but it turns out there's something deeper (?) going on there. As near as I can recall, the movie doesn't tell us a lot about him, so I expect he's mostly just a cool character built around the origami gimmick. What are your theories there?
And now that you mention it, I can totally picture Harrison Ford's smirk. I think what he's going for is a sort of "well, I'll be...!", which is an odd choice.
-Tom
Ah,the irony.
-Tom
Well you'll recall Bryant telling Gaff that he could "learn from this guy" after Deckard took out Zhora, indicating that perhaps he's not just an officer, but a Blade Runner himself.
One theory is that Gaff was throwing down the gauntlet if you will and basically giving Rachael and Deckard a head start before hunting them down. This might explain the smirk followed by the nodding head with the somewhat serious look on his face as he crumples the unicorn and takes off right at the end.
Now, why Gaff would do that instead of just slaughtering Rachael while she slept and then Deckard when he arrived, who's to say? Maybe it's him being sporting, or at least giving Deckard some recognition for the work he did in hunting down the others.
There are other theories as to the symbolism of the unicorn as perhaps something other than just some implanted memory. Maybe Gaff is letting Deckard know that - while he could have killed Rachel - he decided to let her live so they could be together for however long she does have to live. This also would explain Deckard's smirk followed by his head nodding in understanding. This theory I think is more plausible because while he's looking at the unicorn he's remembering Gaff telling him "it's too bad she won't live, but then again who does?"
If it is something more than just one final clue for the audience to chew on, it does seem rather vague and open to many interpretations.
Hmmmmm, you cut out the specifics to go for the cheap snark. Kinda ironic.
You talked big about Musashi's smacking everyone around with his logic and I note he simply used hand waving with me - and do you make a case on how I was wrong, or even acknowledge the point? No. Kinda ironic.
Note how I'm giving specifics here, and did you? Nope. None, nothing, nada. So, irony? Oh yes, indeed, and thanks for illustrating my point.
As I noted somewhere earlier, I had to rid myself mentally of the voice-over version entirely. It's just baggage that gets in the way of watching the Final Cut. It's fine to compare them later at some point, but to appreciate what it is on it's own merits, I don't like trying to fit the two together like some puzzle rather than watch them as their own stories. I'd recommend to anyone to watch the Final Cut first if you have never seen the movie - I think it is the purer artistic vision.
To me Gaff is the reason for believing that Deckard is a replicant. And in fact I think he's there for just that reason. Gaff is a guy that knows the whole thing. I'd go as far as thinking that he's a replicant as well. Maybe one of the new breed. And as such, he gives Deckard a clue to tell him that he should go rogue. Maybe he's telling Deckard to get out of his job, try to find happiness and get lost fast. Because they are retiring the old or older models.
And honestly, how do we know what HE is?
Actually, Rich, everyone is a replicant, that's the twist.
Oh, he's absolutely a device to demonstrate that Deckard is a replicant. On a narrative level, he's basically an origami delivery device. But as for Gaff being a replicant, I wondered if that's what Penny Dreadful was getting at.
I don't remember enough specifics about Gaff, mainly because I don't think the movie offers specifics. But it's a great question: what did Gaff know and when did he know it?
-Tom
"Tell him I'm eating."
Bryant's office - Chicken.
Leon's apartment - Man.
Deckard's apartment - Unicorn.
"Was it a Man? A Police Man?"
So did it not occur to the police to use the Voight-Kampff test when hiring?
It did to Phillip K Dick. But Ridley didn't actually read the book.....
Posting Permissions