He Say You Brade Runner Sequel (and Ridley Scott Appreciation Station)

chiasaur11

Druhim wrote:

chiasaur11 wrote: »

Druhim wrote:

Also chia you're stupid for thinking the replicants are robots or androids. The film makes it clear that they're manufactured humans. They're flesh and blood, not machines.

I know that.

But the book calls them Andies and Androids, which, as we are all aware are a type of robot built to look like people.

It'd be a lot more questionable if the originals didn't use it, but they did and here we are.

You keep talking about the book as if it has much to do with the film.

Normally, it doesn't, except as an interesting comparison point. In this case, though, it helps establish literary and fictional precedent for the use of the term "android" to refer to an artificial human with blood, guts, and bone rather than just the electronic kind. There's a wealth of sources using android to refer to the ones in the film as well, including, if memory serves, several authorized behind the scene books (may be wrong about that part, but I did my homework on the rest).

Getting pedantic here is worse than if you brought up the term gynoid for Rachel.

Aneurhythmia

chiasaur11 wrote:

Replicants are a central theme of the book. But it's a different replicant thing. In the book, every single one of them is a dyed in the wool bastard. Androids don't dream of electric sheep.

But people do. An electric sheep is just as capable as a real sheep of being an object of affection, even if it can't return the love. Deckard is our hero because he can love and stay human, unlike poor Phil, who torpedoed a big chunk of his empathy to survive his run in with Rachel.

Film goes hard in the other direction. Book Deckard is married, and has the whole Mercerism thing going, and his empathy nearly gets him killed at the end. Not a good man, necessarily, but a very human figure. Film Deck is a broken man who is almost incapable of empathy. To the point we're wondering if he'd fail the VK. Book replicants, they're as I said, bastards. Rachel wants to sleep with Deckard so he'll die going after the Replicants. They tear the legs off a spider. Meanwhile, movie Roy is more human than any of the humans. He saves Rick at the end, even. Even if he's a bad man, he's as capable of emotional involvement as anyone.

Both are ironies about replicants, but they're different ironies.

Again, might have it all wrong.

I think you've steamrolled right over a lot of intentional ambiguities in both works to allow yourself a more explicit perspective. It's a little troubling. In fact it raises a lot of questions about you. Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention.

chiasaur11

Aneurhythmia wrote:

chiasaur11 wrote:

Replicants are a central theme of the book. But it's a different replicant thing. In the book, every single one of them is a dyed in the wool bastard. Androids don't dream of electric sheep.

But people do. An electric sheep is just as capable as a real sheep of being an object of affection, even if it can't return the love. Deckard is our hero because he can love and stay human, unlike poor Phil, who torpedoed a big chunk of his empathy to survive his run in with Rachel.

Film goes hard in the other direction. Book Deckard is married, and has the whole Mercerism thing going, and his empathy nearly gets him killed at the end. Not a good man, necessarily, but a very human figure. Film Deck is a broken man who is almost incapable of empathy. To the point we're wondering if he'd fail the VK. Book replicants, they're as I said, bastards. Rachel wants to sleep with Deckard so he'll die going after the Replicants. They tear the legs off a spider. Meanwhile, movie Roy is more human than any of the humans. He saves Rick at the end, even. Even if he's a bad man, he's as capable of emotional involvement as anyone.

Both are ironies about replicants, but they're different ironies.

Again, might have it all wrong.

I think you've steamrolled right over a lot of intentional ambiguities in both works to allow yourself a more explicit perspective. It's a little troubling. In fact it raises a lot of questions about you. Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention.

Um, alright.

Druhim

ok now chia's just spewing bullshit

Druhim

oh wait, that was the case all along

Shorty

nope.

Zonugal

So what is the argument here? That androids are artificial humans and the replicants aren't androids even though they are artificial humans?

An apple is an apple except when an apple is a cran-apple surprise!

Shorty

druhim's arguing semantics about some words which describe things that don't exist and he's being an asshole about it

business as usual

Zonugal

Your dragon isn't a dragon because they breath fire, and yours is only a huge lizard with wings and magical abilities who doesn't breath fire.

Druhim

No, chia's basically saying well Deckard's like this in the book so he sucks as a bladerunner in the movie because he's not a badass and they're called androids in the book so they're not human in the film blah blah. The film is basically inspired by the book. You can't really cite anything from the book as proof of how something is or should be in the film. In the film they're unambiguously human, just genetically engineered humans with shortened lifespans and implanted memories that are used as slave labor off world that no one cares about because they're just "skin jobs".

Zonugal

Having read the book and such I was always confused by something. Couldn't you simply test a male replicant's sperm? I assume that it couldn't have been functional so wouldn't that be a starting point?

chiasaur11

Zonugal wrote:

Having read the book and such I was always confused by something. Couldn't you simply test a male replicant's sperm? I assume that it couldn't have been functional so wouldn't that be a starting point?

Never thought of that. On the other hand, it'd risk a lot of false positive for naturally sterile people, if the methods for making sure andies don't make baby andies matches up with the aftereffects of total global nuclear war, and in the same time period you could just use the VK.

Still, they might use that method somewhere, considering Resch's methods versus Deckard's.

Clint Eastwood

As awesome as this argument is, let's talk about Ghost Rider's urinary habits instead.

Aneurhythmia

Zonugal wrote:

Having read the book and such I was always confused by something. Couldn't you simply test a male replicant's sperm? I assume that it couldn't have been functional so wouldn't that be a starting point?

I haven't read the book in a long time, but I want to say in that they were even more organic than in the movie, and the only way to be sure was to test them after they were dead. And I think in the movie they went with empathy tests, because they weren't super conspicuous. I want to say Leon thought he was taking an IQ test, but I might be misremembering that part. Trying to collect sperm samples as a starting point seems like it'd be overly suspicious, even if it wasn't known that it was for replicant testing.

Zonugal

That looks metal as all fuck.

Franko

Pissing fire, the sequel to Cage's hit, pissing blood

Zonugal

Hopefully the villain in this one won't be the blueberry girl from Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory.

Grey Ghost

Clint Eastwood wrote:

As awesome as this argument is, let's talk about Ghost Rider's urinary habits instead.

This trailer alone is better than the whole first Ghost Rider movie

Balefuego

thats not really saying much

Grey Ghost

Touche

Shorty

say what you will about the first ghost rider

but it had sam elliot teaming up with a helldemon to kick the son of satan's ass

it's not a movie to be taken seriously

Balefuego

Im not sure I made it that far before I stopped watching

Shorty

you really have to work to enjoy that movie

I mean, really

you have to go into it saying, "I am going to enjoy the fuck out of this movie."

Balefuego

I got myself through the first however long telling myself eventually he'll turn into Ghost Rider and do something cool and then he turned into Ghost Rider and there was a long fight scene that was even more boring than all the dumb shit that had came before and I gave up

Shorty

yeah see the thing about superhero sequels is that they can skip all the boring origin shit and just go right into the fighting

so GR2 should be pretty good, especially since, judging by the trailer, they have recognized that what we want to see is radtastic fight scenes and other crazy bullshit

this is something they apparently decided to ignore when they made Iron Man 2 but whatever

Aneurhythmia

Wait. Hold on. What the shit fuck. I'm on a bar and there's a commercial for a Straw Dogs remake on one of the TVs.
What.
What the fuck.
There are not enough fucks.

Lost Salient

Every time Ghost Rider is on TV I watch it.

I can't help myself. I think something's wrong with me.

Balefuego

If I agree would that be good natured or mean spirited

Lost Salient

I think in this case it would be considered an accurate appraisal.

Like, why? Why do I watch that stupid scene with that stupid stupid bike on the building every single time?

Blake T

Ghost rider is a good movie to watch when it is on tv while you are doing something else because you look up and a dude is on FIRE then you go and have more fun and later a horse is on FIRE and that's pretty cool too.

Penguin Incarnate

I gotta get around to reading that BFI book on Blade Runner. The one on The Big Lebowski was really good, so I'm hoping for something to match that one.

BusterK

You mean Future Noir?

Penguin Incarnate

No, I mean the BFI book on Blade Runner.

Also, as good as this is, it could use more Simon Mayo--

Mysst

you know, if I was going to get an infraction I am proud that it was because of Conan.

Blake T

Mysst do you see tits in Conan?

I have already told viv that I will not see it if there are no tits.

mrt144

Blankzilla wrote:

Hahahahaha

"this possible atrocity"

so if something has even a small chance of being less than good it should never be made?

Yes. See Total Scatfest, I mean Total Recall.

Depressperado

your avatar is really just the best accompaniment to your posts.

mrt144

I just have a higher standard than most of you drooling over the prospect of a half baked Ridley Scott re imagining.

DouglasDanger

Macro9 wrote:

Blade Runner prequel starring Roy Batty?

That's called Soldier, starring Kurt Russel.

I had this really neat idea when I was in high school, that weird jerk with the cane who makes the origami guys is actually the Blade Runner, and Deckard is really a replicant he controls somehow.

Aneurhythmia

mrt144 wrote:

I just have a higher standard than most of you drooling over the prospect of a half baked Ridley Scott re imagining.

You have a special kind of myopia.