Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 70 of 70

Thread: R.I.P. Rutger Hauer...

  1. #51
    Member Staun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by GuitarGeek View Post
    According to Wikipedia, three of the four Nexus 6 replicants we see were either soldiers (Roy and Leon) or an assassin (Zhora). Roy Batty is described as a "combat model". One assumes that one of the things Tyrell had figured out was to program their DNA so there'd be no moral conflicts with "following orders" that involve killing. What good is a soldier who refuses to shoot at the enemy because it violates his beliefs about life?

    Of course, "just following orders" is something that has cropped up many times throughout human history, without the assistance of 21st century genetic science (real or imagined).

    Oh and Rachel kills Leon, though that was to stop Leon from killing Deckard.

    And if we're gonna talk about who played who in the movie, there's a lot of more or less well known actors in this picture. I find it amusing that Sebastian is played by William Sanderson. You may not recognize the name, but if I said "Hi, my name's Larry, this is my brother Darryl, this is my other brother Darryl", that might give you a clue about one of his other, slightly more high profile performances.
    GG, how could I forget that Rachael did kill Leon. She did kill bur her reason or motivation or whatever you call it for a replicant, was to save a life. Tyrell wanted them to be more human than human, so I suppose they all had the ability to kill. Your also right that Roy and Zhora were made for combat so we should not be surprised.
    The older I get, the better I was.

  2. #52
    Member Staun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerjo View Post
    Killing certainly wasn't engineered out of Deckard either (depending on which theory you subscribe to)
    Watching the original film, I saw nothing that would make me think Deckard was a replicant. I didn't read the book but did you see anything that would make you think he was a replicant? The voice over version sort of gives one the idea he's just a guy telling a story. Of course the twist would be a replicant telling the story.
    The older I get, the better I was.

  3. #53
    Member Staun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,253
    GG, I really enjoy picking out character actors from a film and thinking back to other things they have played in. I think Sanderson played in The Bob Newhart Show. The one where he is running a hotel. Didn't he have a brother who had the same name?
    The older I get, the better I was.

  4. #54
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Staun View Post
    Watching the original film, I saw nothing that would make me think Deckard was a replicant. I didn't read the book but did you see anything that would make you think he was a replicant? The voice over version sort of gives one the idea he's just a guy telling a story. Of course the twist would be a replicant telling the story.
    Thatís why the Final Cut was great and the original film wasnít.

  5. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by Staun View Post
    Watching the original film, I saw nothing that would make me think Deckard was a replicant. I didn't read the book but did you see anything that would make you think he was a replicant? The voice over version sort of gives one the idea he's just a guy telling a story. Of course the twist would be a replicant telling the story.
    You need to see the Director's Cut. This has an additional sequence that confirms Deckard's replicant status. There's also a scene where Deckard's eyes briefly 'glow' in a replicant manner.

    However, Deckard-as-replicant didn't sit well with Ford and Hauer who thought that it rendered the final scenes meaningless, in that Batty wasn't fighting and then saving a human's life, but that of another replicant. My take on that is that Batty doesn't know Deckard is a replicant (and neither does Deckard).

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Halmyre View Post
    You need to see the Director's Cut. This has an additional sequence that confirms Deckard's replicant status. There's also a scene where Deckard's eyes briefly 'glow' in a replicant manner.

    However, Deckard-as-replicant didn't sit well with Ford and Hauer who thought that it rendered the final scenes meaningless, in that Batty wasn't fighting and then saving a human's life, but that of another replicant. My take on that is that Batty doesn't know Deckard is a replicant (and neither does Deckard).
    I think that's the only conclusion one can reach if one goes with the "Deckard as replicant" plot-line. Neither Batty nor even Deckard himself likely knew.

    AFAIC, though, Ford and Hauer were right and Ridley Scott was wrong. I personally think making Deckard a replicant was stupid and meaningless and subverts the whole point of the story. It certainly isn't that way in the book. I've seen all the various versions and own the DVD with all the ridiculous extra cuts. I still feel the original film, voice-overs and happy ending included, is the best version. Everything else is just window dressing, trying to shoehorn Blade Runner into Scott's Aliens universe, which is cool in a geeky way, but not really that meaningful from the perspective of the philosophical questions Dick was asking in the book and that are presented in the original film. IMHO.

    Bill

  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Staun View Post
    GG, I really enjoy picking out character actors from a film and thinking back to other things they have played in. I think Sanderson played in The Bob Newhart Show. The one where he is running a hotel. Didn't he have a brother who had the same name?
    Yes, William Sanderson played Larry on Newhart. I quoted his famous catchphrase that he used regularly on the show. Larry had two brothers, both named Darryl, hence the line "I'm Larry, this is my brother Darryl, and this is my other brother Darryl".

  8. #58
    Member Staun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
    I think that's the only conclusion one can reach if one goes with the "Deckard as replicant" plot-line. Neither Batty nor even Deckard himself likely knew.

    AFAIC, though, Ford and Hauer were right and Ridley Scott was wrong. I personally think making Deckard a replicant was stupid and meaningless and subverts the whole point of the story. It certainly isn't that way in the book. I've seen all the various versions and own the DVD with all the ridiculous extra cuts. I still feel the original film, voice-overs and happy ending included, is the best version. Everything else is just window dressing, trying to shoehorn Blade Runner into Scott's Aliens universe, which is cool in a geeky way, but not really that meaningful from the perspective of the philosophical questions Dick was asking in the book and that are presented in the original film. IMHO.

    Bill
    I have to agree here. If they had wanted him to be a replicant in the original, the fact should have been made known. That would have been acceptable to me that Deckard didn't know he was a replicant. If you give me a bowl of soup, fine. Don't walk by dropping additional ingredients in to it. As it were. Decide what something is, then leave it that way. If you have more to say, make your second film. How does everyone feel about BR 2049?
    The older I get, the better I was.

  9. #59
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Staun View Post
    If you have more to say, make your second film. How does everyone feel about BR 2049?
    BR 2049 goes further into the questions raised by BR 2019, to wit: What does it mean to be human, when robots and AIs are "more human than human"? What does falling in love mean if your object-of-desire is unobtainable? Is loyalty a characteristic worth cultivating if your object-of-loyalty is morally ambiguous? Can the "greater good" really justify doing really horrible things? If mankind continues to put profits ahead of common sense, where will this leave us?

    I thought BR 2049 was one of the ten best movies ever made.

    BR 2019 was one of the others.

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by Sputnik View Post
    I think that's the only conclusion one can reach if one goes with the "Deckard as replicant" plot-line. Neither Batty nor even Deckard himself likely knew.

    AFAIC, though, Ford and Hauer were right and Ridley Scott was wrong. I personally think making Deckard a replicant was stupid and meaningless and subverts the whole point of the story. It certainly isn't that way in the book. I've seen all the various versions and own the DVD with all the ridiculous extra cuts. I still feel the original film, voice-overs and happy ending included, is the best version. Everything else is just window dressing, trying to shoehorn Blade Runner into Scott's Aliens universe, which is cool in a geeky way, but not really that meaningful from the perspective of the philosophical questions Dick was asking in the book and that are presented in the original film. IMHO.

    Bill
    IMO, the book is really way different and can't be given a 1-to-1 comparison to Scott's adaptation of the story.

    Philip K. Dick didn't ever really make the replicants sympathetic. All of them lacked empathy, which even the mentally-handicapped human character still retained in spite of losing his other mental faculties. Empathy is a key component in being human, and without it, the replicants could never truly be "human".

    IMO.

  11. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by aith01 View Post
    IMO, the book is really way different and can't be given a 1-to-1 comparison to Scott's adaptation of the story.
    I'd agree with that, I and I wasn't trying to imply there was a 1-1 relationship. I was just pointing out that there was never any hint in the book that Deckard was a replicant, and that it was Scott's addition; sometimes to the distaste of the actors and other members of the production staff.

    Quote Originally Posted by aith01 View Post
    Philip K. Dick didn't ever really make the replicants sympathetic. All of them lacked empathy, which even the mentally-handicapped human character still retained in spite of losing his other mental faculties. Empathy is a key component in being human, and without it, the replicants could never truly be "human".

    IMO.
    That's largely true, and in the end I think that's where Dick basically winds up as well. But in the book, the humans are far more "degraded," and closer in a sense to the replicants. They have lost their humanity, while the replicants are striving towards it... but what is it they are both seeking? That's the question in the book, as is the question of what is "real?", another common PhilDickian theme. The film is close to this, but the replicants, led largely by Hauer's portrayal of Batty, are perhaps closer to human, which re-frames the question a bit. Empathy, of a sort, again wins the day, but the separation is a bit more murky. And if there's no separation at all, the whole question is meaningless, which is why I don't care for the remakes of the original film.

    Bill

  12. #62
    Member Jerjo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    small town in ND
    Posts
    3,531
    On another forum I frequent, there was a discussion of the film a few years ago and someone made a post that made me think more about Blade Runner than I had in quite some time. In fact I copied it to some of my writing notes because I like it so well.

    Deckard is a replicant and is supposed to have a reduced life expectancy the same as Rachel but he still escapes with her despite having an unknown short time left alive. Wasn't that point of the original?
    Well, I guess it depends on what you think the point of the original was. For me, the question of whether Deckard is a replicant is a minor one compared to the other questions in the film - what it means to be human; the importance of memory; the nature of the relationship between creator and created.
    I think the takeaway line from the film is Gaff's "It's a shame she won't live; but then again, who does?". It's a call to make the use of the time you have, however much it is. This is underlined by the differences between Deckard and Roy - Roy has a short life span, but the things he has done with it - the things he has seen (you people wouldn't believe)! Whereas Deckard - replicant or not - is just kind of bumbling through. Roy is the protagonist of the film; the antagonist is death, which is coming for Roy regardless of Deckard.
    Deckard is, by and large, meaningless. Roy's quest is for more life; and he gets his answer - he can't have it. None of the replicants would live long regardless of Deckard's action or inaction. Roy's final action is to save Deckard's life; to impart to Deckard some notion of the fact that he has to live his life, because at the end, all our experiences are lost, like tears in rain. But go have them. Go experience life! Because without those memories, without those experiences, what do you have? "It's a shame she won't live; but then again, who does?" Who truly lives life? Roy Batty did. Deckard is just starting to live his when the doors to that elevator close.
    I don't like country music, but I don't mean to denigrate those who do. And for the people who like country music, denigrate means 'put down.'- Bob Newhart

  13. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerjo View Post
    On another forum I frequent, there was a discussion of the film a few years ago and someone made a post that made me think more about Blade Runner than I had in quite some time. In fact I copied it to some of my writing notes because I like it so well.

    Deckard is a replicant and is supposed to have a reduced life expectancy the same as Rachel but he still escapes with her despite having an unknown short time left alive. Wasn't that point of the original?
    Well, I guess it depends on what you think the point of the original was. For me, the question of whether Deckard is a replicant is a minor one compared to the other questions in the film - what it means to be human; the importance of memory; the nature of the relationship between creator and created.
    I think the takeaway line from the film is Gaff's "It's a shame she won't live; but then again, who does?". It's a call to make the use of the time you have, however much it is. This is underlined by the differences between Deckard and Roy - Roy has a short life span, but the things he has done with it - the things he has seen (you people wouldn't believe)! Whereas Deckard - replicant or not - is just kind of bumbling through. Roy is the protagonist of the film; the antagonist is death, which is coming for Roy regardless of Deckard.
    Deckard is, by and large, meaningless. Roy's quest is for more life; and he gets his answer - he can't have it. None of the replicants would live long regardless of Deckard's action or inaction. Roy's final action is to save Deckard's life; to impart to Deckard some notion of the fact that he has to live his life, because at the end, all our experiences are lost, like tears in rain. But go have them. Go experience life! Because without those memories, without those experiences, what do you have? "It's a shame she won't live; but then again, who does?" Who truly lives life? Roy Batty did. Deckard is just starting to live his when the doors to that elevator close.
    Brilliant!

  14. #64
    Don't let your meatloaf! Paulie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Boston, MA
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    I thought BR 2049 was one of the ten best movies ever made.
    I enjoyed this more than the original, and that's saying a LOT.
    "That gum you like is going to come back in style."

  15. #65
    Member Staun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    BR 2049 goes further into the questions raised by BR 2019, to wit: What does it mean to be human, when robots and AIs are "more human than human"? What does falling in love mean if your object-of-desire is unobtainable? Is loyalty a characteristic worth cultivating if your object-of-loyalty is morally ambiguous? Can the "greater good" really justify doing really horrible things? If mankind continues to put profits ahead of common sense, where will this leave us?

    I thought BR 2049 was one of the ten best movies ever made.

    BR 2019 was one of the others.
    It was amazing. Was hoping Deckard could have gotten Rachael back but it was not to be. Replicant or not, it was very emotional. I think this would mean more if all we had was the original film and not the add on's.
    The older I get, the better I was.

  16. #66
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerjo View Post
    Deckard is a replicant and is supposed to have a reduced life expectancy the same as Rachel but he still escapes with her despite having an unknown short time left alive. Wasn't that point of the original?
    Well, I guess it depends on what you think the point of the original was. For me, the question of whether Deckard is a replicant is a minor one compared to the other questions in the film - what it means to be human; the importance of memory; the nature of the relationship between creator and created.
    I think the takeaway line from the film is Gaff's "It's a shame she won't live; but then again, who does?". It's a call to make the use of the time you have, however much it is. This is underlined by the differences between Deckard and Roy - Roy has a short life span, but the things he has done with it - the things he has seen (you people wouldn't believe)! Whereas Deckard - replicant or not - is just kind of bumbling through. Roy is the protagonist of the film; the antagonist is death, which is coming for Roy regardless of Deckard.
    Deckard is, by and large, meaningless. Roy's quest is for more life; and he gets his answer - he can't have it. None of the replicants would live long regardless of Deckard's action or inaction. Roy's final action is to save Deckard's life; to impart to Deckard some notion of the fact that he has to live his life, because at the end, all our experiences are lost, like tears in rain. But go have them. Go experience life! Because without those memories, without those experiences, what do you have? "It's a shame she won't live; but then again, who does?" Who truly lives life? Roy Batty did. Deckard is just starting to live his when the doors to that elevator close.
    Yes, this is a great analysis of the first film. "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very very brightly, Roy. Look at you. You're the prodigal son." Roy: "I've done... questionable things." Eldon: "Also extraordinary things. Revel in your time."

    There are clues throughout the movie that Deckard is a replicant: the pictures on his piano. His incredible strength & endurance. "You're not cop, you're little people." His memories of being married -- "Sushi. She called me sushi. Cold fish." Batty tells him: "Not very sporting to fire on an unarmed opponent. I thought you were supposed to be good. Aren't you the "good" man?" Deckard himself never realizes he is a replicant, until Gaff leaves him the origami unicorn, proving his memories (and dreams) are implants.

    One correction though: Rachel did not have the standard Nexus 6 four-year lifespan. Tyrell announces her as an "experimental model" without the lifespan limitation. That's why Roy Batty later confronts Tyrell, asking him for "more life, fucker." Unfortunately it can't be retrofitted: "You were made as well as we could make you." So when Deckard takes off with Rachel, he does not know how long they'll have together -- just like any human couple.

  17. #67
    Member Staun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Yes, this is a great analysis of the first film. "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very very brightly, Roy. Look at you. You're the prodigal son." Roy: "I've done... questionable things." Eldon: "Also extraordinary things. Revel in your time."

    There are clues throughout the movie that Deckard is a replicant: the pictures on his piano. His incredible strength & endurance. "You're not cop, you're little people." His memories of being married -- "Sushi. She called me sushi. Cold fish." Batty tells him: "Not very sporting to fire on an unarmed opponent. I thought you were supposed to be good. Aren't you the "good" man?" Deckard himself never realizes he is a replicant, until Gaff leaves him the origami unicorn, proving his memories (and dreams) are implants.

    One correction though: Rachel did not have the standard Nexus 6 four-year lifespan. Tyrell announces her as an "experimental model" without the lifespan limitation. That's why Roy Batty later confronts Tyrell, asking him for "more life, fucker." Unfortunately it can't be retrofitted: "You were made as well as we could make you." So when Deckard takes off with Rachel, he does not know how long they'll have together -- just like any human couple.
    My dear Mr. Carlberg, I have considered your proposed clues but at present, I Still DON'T SEE IT
    The older I get, the better I was.

  18. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by rcarlberg View Post
    Yes, this is a great analysis of the first film. "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. And you have burned so very very brightly, Roy. Look at you. You're the prodigal son." Roy: "I've done... questionable things." Eldon: "Also extraordinary things. Revel in your time."

    There are clues throughout the movie that Deckard is a replicant: the pictures on his piano. His incredible strength & endurance. "You're not cop, you're little people." His memories of being married -- "Sushi. She called me sushi. Cold fish." Batty tells him: "Not very sporting to fire on an unarmed opponent. I thought you were supposed to be good. Aren't you the "good" man?" Deckard himself never realizes he is a replicant, until Gaff leaves him the origami unicorn, proving his memories (and dreams) are implants.

    One correction though: Rachel did not have the standard Nexus 6 four-year lifespan. Tyrell announces her as an "experimental model" without the lifespan limitation. That's why Roy Batty later confronts Tyrell, asking him for "more life, fucker." Unfortunately it can't be retrofitted: "You were made as well as we could make you." So when Deckard takes off with Rachel, he does not know how long they'll have together -- just like any human couple.
    Rachel's unlimited lifespan was again part of the tacked-on happy ending. I don't think it's mentioned anywhere else.

  19. #69
    Member Staun's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Milwaukee, WI
    Posts
    1,253
    Quote Originally Posted by Halmyre View Post
    Rachel's unlimited lifespan was again part of the tacked-on happy ending. I don't think it's mentioned anywhere else.
    I thought Tyrell mentioned her different life span just after he tested her to see if she was a replicant. The voice over mentioned it while they were in the car driving away at the very end. The interview was a great scene with Rachael smoking the cigarette. You could almost taste it.
    The older I get, the better I was.

  20. #70
    Member Emeritus (A.M.P.) rcarlberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,443
    Quote Originally Posted by Staun View Post
    My dear Mr. Carlberg, I have considered your proposed clues but at present, I Still DON'T SEE IT
    That's okay. The movie was intentionally left open to interpretation.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •