The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
The movie is certainly iconic, and I think was great even in the theatrical release. It wasn't "happy, happy, joy, joy" in the ending, it was hopeful yet fatalistic. "Too bad she won't live. But then again, who does?"
I'm a little surprised it looks like I'm the first to point out that that's the voice-over from the Director's and Final cut. The theatrical is a cheesy Harrison Ford thing that is really lame as all hell.
I've rewatched the 5th Element recently on a standard tv, it still holds up well imo, but then I've not seen a HD version. I can see that it, as well as others with extensive special effects would not hold up well
It's not the special fx that don't seem to hold up. It's the movie itself. At least, to me. Unlike good movies in the genre, that one just doesn't reward repeat viewings for me anymore. I mean, I can still enjoy it, but somehow, every time I watch it, it seems cheesier, and stylish with no depth.
I've seen an HD transfer (at 720p) and the movie looks good at that resolution, but that's it. Actually, the empty feeling I now get from watching it possibly stems from the fact that the movie hints at a lot more, but the plot is wrapped up so well in the end that there would almost be no point in a sequel.
Imagine if Star Wars (episode IV, for the faithful) never got any sequels. Now watch it again, and think: this is all there is. I don't know about you, but my own feeling would probably be "what a waste". And the movie wouldn't hold up as well, because of it.
But the movie has an ending that insults your intelligence.
How so? And are you talking original or directors cut ending? The tone is totally different.
I probably overstated 'insults your intelligence'. I should have said 'kills the tone off once and for all', and I mean the final Hauer speech. It's so giggle-inducing. Alien (for instance) is a much campier movie than Blade Runner, so the occasional over the top line doesn't feel so completely out of place. But I have never sat with anyone who has seen the 'tears in the rain' line and not laughed a little. It's treated like the most important moment in the film, and it's so not deserving.
The first hour of Blade Runner is amazing. But the third act is almost notably terrible. Like, people seeing it for the first time are going to be surprised by how such a good movie goes so bad so quickly.
/agree
Blade Runner was groundbreaking and visually stunning. It captured the essence of new wave sf in film in a way no other film had done before (and to a certain degree no film has done since). Harrison Ford and Sean Young were brilliant, and the first half of the movie sets up the milieu beautifully.
But Ridley Scott was still a young director then and he basically let Rutger Hauer run roughshod over the third act.
I always felt that the "dove speech" should have been delivered with righteous (but ultimately impotent) anger. Roy was set up as a perfect ubermensch, with all the glory and passion of a Grecian God. And he's basically the protagonist of the story, not Deckard. Deckard himself is basically a blank slate, a walking talking plot device to keep the action of the movie flowing along. The meat of the story (the screenplay, that is, not the original PKD story) is Roy struggling against his own fate.
Roy spends the first half of the movie burning with barely-contained rage against his own fate. Here's a man who is mad at his own creator for making him mortal. What could be more epic than that? But when it comes time for this legendary struggle to meet its climax, Roy goes out with a whimper, not a bang. In his last moments, he looks self-pitying, which casts a pathetic light on his entire fight. And the bit with the dove? That was Rutger Hauer's idea, not Ridley Scott's.
There are also major problems with pacing. The outdoor scenes assault the senses with this dense, intense, highly developed world - but only for brief moments. Maybe that was a stylistic decision, but I suspect it was more for budgetary reasons. Then a lot of the indoor scenes just drag on pointlessly. The pacing gets worse the further into the film you get.The earlier scenes of the Voight-Kampff test, Deckard in the police station, meeting Rachael for the first time, the first time you see Roy; are as tightly paced as a metronome. After we meet Zhora and Pris, though, the movie kind of loses its direction.
I'm not saying it's not brilliant or even a masterpiece. I consider it both of these things. I'm just saying it's not perfect, not by a longshot - it's a flawed masterpiece, and no amount of editing, re-editing, re-visioning, re-releasing, is ever going to make it perfect.
I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but the way you justify it seems unfair to me. You present a somewhat unorthodox angle at which to look at the movie (seeing Rutger Hauer's character as the main character), and then you use that distorted view to claim that the movie is flawed.
I just bought the 5-disc collector's set (DVD... I'm not going to invest in any one of the two HD formats until a clear winner emerges) and I'll watch the various cuts this weekend, and then decide if I still believe that the second half of the movie holds up better than you seem to think. The tone certainly changes, but I'm not convinced the way you are that the change is for the worst. I'll reserve a more complete verdict once I've seen the Final Cut, and the original theatrical cut (it's been a really long while since I've seen that cut, enough that I don't remember the narration being a problem, as when I last heard it, it was the only versino of the movie, and I was still a kid who wouldn't have known better, anyway.)
Quick detour, while we're on the subject: Can anyone who's purchased the Final Cut let me know if the voice-over was removed? I read through this whole thread but may have missed if that was stated. BladeRunner has been my mom's favorite movie since it came out, and the [actual] theatrical version is still her favorite, but she can't seem to find a copy of it without the voice-overs. I wish I was a big enough fan to know the intricate details of all the dvds, but as far as I know, none of them (at least, none in large availability?) feature the original version. Also, if it does turn out to be an intact version, please let me know if the 5-disc set is worth hunting down.
As for the debate: I do think BladeRunner is a great movie, but I'm not sure I'd place it as the end-all-and-be-all of cyberpunk/what have you. I prefer instead to take many parts of that genre and sort of moosh them together to imagine one big happy dystopia. For example, I always get parts of Neuromancer and BladeRunner mixed up, but I'm okay with departing from the canon; I just love the idea of "cyberpunk" too much to pick just one.
Also, I just read that Wired article on the Final Cut.
I did not get the impression that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, and as a post above implied, I don't think we necessarily need to spend so much time on him as coming to that conclusion would take. Perhaps I just missed some obvious clues (something I'll admit I do; I'm a very flaky movie-watcher)? If that's not the case (and I'm looking for a barcode or something, here), then I'm wondering what could have made Scott claim it was "obvious."
Quick detour, while we're on the subject: Can anyone who's purchased the Final Cut let me know if the voice-over was removed? I read through this whole thread but may have missed if that was stated. BladeRunner has been my mom's favorite movie since it came out, and the [actual] theatrical version is still her favorite, but she can't seem to find a copy of it without the voice-overs. I wish I was a big enough fan to know the intricate details of all the dvds, but as far as I know, none of them (at least, none in large availability?) feature the original version. Also, if it does turn out to be an intact version, please let me know if the 5-disc set is worth hunting down.
As for the debate: I do think BladeRunner is a great movie, but I'm not sure I'd place it as the end-all-and-be-all of cyberpunk/what have you. I prefer instead to take many parts of that genre and sort of moosh them together to imagine one big happy dystopia. For example, I always get parts of Neuromancer and BladeRunner mixed up, but I'm okay with departing from the canon; I just love the idea of "cyberpunk" too much to pick just one.
Also, I just read that Wired article on the Final Cut.
I did not get the impression that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, and as a post above implied, I don't think we necessarily need to spend so much time on him as coming to that conclusion would take. Perhaps I just missed some obvious clues (something I'll admit I do; I'm a very flaky movie-watcher)? If that's not the case (and I'm looking for a barcode or something, here), then I'm wondering what could have made Scott claim it was "obvious."
Deckard's dream at the piano, and then the tinfoil model that the weird cane guy leaves at the end.
Sam on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited December 2007
there's a wiki article that details the different versions. that will tell you if the voiceover is in since I can't remember off the top of my head.
Quick detour, while we're on the subject: Can anyone who's purchased the Final Cut let me know if the voice-over was removed?
All the reviews I've read have said that the Final Cut is voice-over-less, which makes sense because the studios added it after the fact.
The Final Cut is supposed to be Ridley Scott's definitive vision, and he sure didn't like the voice-over.
Also, there is no "theatrical version without voice-over" unless you consider the limited release that the Final Cut version got (did the 90's Director's Cut get a limited release as well?) There's only 2 "official" theatrical versions: the "regular" one and the "European" one which has a few gorier/more violent scenes left in. Both of these have the voice over.
I did not get the impression that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, and as a post above implied, I don't think we necessarily need to spend so much time on him as coming to that conclusion would take. Perhaps I just missed some obvious clues (something I'll admit I do; I'm a very flaky movie-watcher)? If that's not the case (and I'm looking for a barcode or something, here), then I'm wondering what could have made Scott claim it was "obvious."
Deckard's dream at the piano, and then the tinfoil model that the weird cane guy leaves at the end.
To elaborate:
Deckard has a dream about a unicorn. He never tells anyone about this, so nobody should rightfully know. However, Cane-Guy leaves a little unicorn model for him. The only way he could know that this would be significant for Deckard is if he had access to his memories, which means Deckard would be a replicant.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I did not get the impression that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, and as a post above implied, I don't think we necessarily need to spend so much time on him as coming to that conclusion would take. Perhaps I just missed some obvious clues (something I'll admit I do; I'm a very flaky movie-watcher)? If that's not the case (and I'm looking for a barcode or something, here), then I'm wondering what could have made Scott claim it was "obvious."
Deckard's dream at the piano, and then the tinfoil model that the weird cane guy leaves at the end.
To elaborate:
Deckard has a dream about a unicorn. He never tells anyone about this, so nobody should rightfully know. However, Cane-Guy leaves a little unicorn model for him. The only way he could know that this would be significant for Deckard is if he had access to his memories, which means Deckard would be a replicant.
Unless Olmos is a Cylon (sorry, Replicant) instead. Nah, that would be silly.
Coldred on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
I did not get the impression that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, and as a post above implied, I don't think we necessarily need to spend so much time on him as coming to that conclusion would take. Perhaps I just missed some obvious clues (something I'll admit I do; I'm a very flaky movie-watcher)? If that's not the case (and I'm looking for a barcode or something, here), then I'm wondering what could have made Scott claim it was "obvious."
Deckard's dream at the piano, and then the tinfoil model that the weird cane guy leaves at the end.
To elaborate:
Deckard has a dream about a unicorn. He never tells anyone about this, so nobody should rightfully know. However, Cane-Guy leaves a little unicorn model for him. The only way he could know that this would be significant for Deckard is if he had access to his memories, which means Deckard would be a replicant.
also
daydream, I think. slightly different imo, though I guess not necessarily.
There's also some bits where he's looking at old family photos, and has a weird collection of photos on top of his piano when he has that day dream, which seems to imply that he's questioning the credibility of his own memory. He seems to really pester Sean Young's character with her own memories, too, like he's determined to find the truth of it.
There's more, too, like the insanely awkward love scene, like the two of them have no idea what the hell human romance is, but I gotta run so I can't really elaborate too much.
Unless Olmos is a Cylon (sorry, Replicant) instead. Nah, that would be silly.
How would Olmos being a replicant give him the ability to see into Deckard's thoughts?
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Or we could just admit that the director has tinkered with the movie to create meaning that the screenwriter didn't intend, and was not in the original novel.
I, personally, think that it's pointless for Deckard to be a replicant, because it's never explored in any significant depth and is only there to be a sci-fi "gotcha." It's even worse than Will Smith having a cybernetic arm in "I, Robot" because at least its used there to create doubt and expand his character. With Deckard, it just cheapens his accomplishments and fully underlines the superiority of the synthetic over the natural.
Deckard being a replicant, for me, is like getting to the end of a slasher movie only to have the slain murderer open his eyes, negating the significance of the characters' struggles up to that point.
I think the unicorn origami was originally meant by the writer to show that Rachel was a dying breed or a fictional creation.
I, personally, think that it's pointless for Deckard to be a replicant, because it's never explored in any significant depth and is only there to be a sci-fi "gotcha." It's even worse than Will Smith having a cybernetic arm in "I, Robot" because at least its used there to create doubt and expand his character. With Deckard, it just cheapens his accomplishments and fully underlines the superiority of the synthetic over the natural.
Deckard being a replicant, for me, is like getting to the end of a slasher movie only to have the slain murderer open his eyes, negating the significance of the characters' struggles up to that point.
I think the unicorn origami was originally meant by the writer to show that Rachel was a dying breed or a fictional creation.
Yeah, I think I saw the unicorn imagery as just an image that could apply to everyone, rather than something connected to only one person. But I suppose I can buy Scott's idea; it just didn't jump out at me, or most anyone I've talked to about the movie, unless they've already read about this particular intent. Did you guys really get that impression without reading about it elsewhere?
To shutz: The original theatrical release in theaters didn't have the voice over, if you were talking to me -- it's the video/dvds, though, that I'm having trouble with. Thank you guys for notes about the Final Cut, though!
Ahh..... Ridley Scott said that Deckard is a replicant. That's why he added the unicorn scene back in.
Watch the spoilers. -- ElJeffe
Yes, but the screenwriter, the star who plays the character, and the author of the original novel all disagree.
It's Scott's movie, but I personally think that it's just a fancy of his, not anything that's really earned. The unicorn origami works just fine without the dream sequence.
Ahh..... Ridley Scott said that Deckard is a replicant. That's why he added the unicorn scene back in.
Watch the spoilers. -- ElJeffe
Yes, but the screenwriter, the star who plays the character, and the author of the original novel all disagree.
It's Scott's movie, but I personally think that it's just a fancy of his, not anything that's really earned. The unicorn origami works just fine without the dream sequence.
In the movie as presented by the director — the director's cut, that is — it is strongly implied that he is. It's not the only divergence from the story of the book. And I'll certainly believe that Ford didn't want to be the ambiguous character, but I think there's more than one obvious explanation for that.
Ahh..... Ridley Scott said that Deckard is a replicant. That's why he added the unicorn scene back in.
Watch the spoilers. -- ElJeffe
Yes, but the screenwriter, the star who plays the character, and the author of the original novel all disagree.
It's Scott's movie, but I personally think that it's just a fancy of his, not anything that's really earned. The unicorn origami works just fine without the dream sequence.
the star who plays the character, and the author of the original novel...they do not matter. I'll give you the screenwriter, but I usually side with the director in these types of things.
Yeah, a film basically belongs to its director, moreso than to its screenplay writer. If Scott says something is true, then it's true, regardless of what anyone's intent was. If Scott wants to say that the whole movie is actually the dream sequence of a four-headed monkeysheep, then that's what it is.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
Yeah, a film basically belongs to its director, moreso than to its screenplay writer. If Scott says something is true, then it's true, regardless of what anyone's intent was. If Scott wants to say that the whole movie is actually the dream sequence of a four-headed monkeysheep, then that's what it is.
Like I said, it's Scott's movie, and I'm fine with what he wants to do, I just don't think the "reveal" is earned or necessary.
That said, I'm intrigued by your four-headed monkeysheep idea, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
I can never understand this obsession with canonicity or whatever. If you choose to think that
Deckard is a tomato, struck by a strange radiation field and is actually the same character as Indiana Jones
then that's up to you. You're the one watching, choose how to interpret it however you want.
Fair point, to an extent. If something is vague or ambiguous, then interpreting it as you see fit is fine. When the guy who made the film says, "this is what this means," you're more than welcome to say, "no, I think it actually means this," but you're kind of wrong. I mean, you can want it to mean whatever you want, or believe that it would be better if it meant something different.
Personally, I like to think that Deckard is a tomato struck by a strange radiation field that turned him into a four-headed monkeysheep.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I haven't seen Blade Runner in its entirely either. While spending a week at my sister's place in October, I saw she had it and figured I'd give it a look. I grew up with the 80s action, so I expected this to be even better since it gets so much praise. I couldn't even make it through the whole thing. There wasn't enough killer robots and far too much a) reflective pause and b) jazz piano.
The director can change stuff in the script during production and shooting and the screenwriter isn't going to be able to do shit about it.
Example, from another Ridley Scott film: In the original Alien, the screenwriter wrote the parts to all be gender-neutral (first names are never used!), and he suggested that at least one crew member should be female. But he, by his own admission, never expected Ripley to be cast as a woman. That was Ridley Scott's decision.
It would have been an entirely different experience had Ripley been a dude.
I haven't seen Blade Runner in its entirely either. While spending a week at my sister's place in October, I saw she had it and figured I'd give it a look. I grew up with the 80s action, so I expected this to be even better since it gets so much praise. I couldn't even make it through the whole thing. There wasn't enough killer robots and far too much a) reflective pause and b) jazz piano.
I haven't seen Blade Runner in its entirely either. While spending a week at my sister's place in October, I saw she had it and figured I'd give it a look. I grew up with the 80s action, so I expected this to be even better since it gets so much praise. I couldn't even make it through the whole thing. There wasn't enough killer robots and far too much a) reflective pause and b) jazz piano.
It's...it's not really an action movie...
Our nation has been ruined into thinking that sci-fi necessarily means Star Trek.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I can never understand this obsession with canonicity or whatever. If you choose to think that
Deckard is a tomato, struck by a strange radiation field and is actually the same character as Indiana Jones
then that's up to you. You're the one watching, choose how to interpret it however you want.
Fair point, to an extent. If something is vague or ambiguous, then interpreting it as you see fit is fine. When the guy who made the film says, "this is what this means," you're more than welcome to say, "no, I think it actually means this," but you're kind of wrong. I mean, you can want it to mean whatever you want, or believe that it would be better if it meant something different.
Personally, I like to think that Deckard is a tomato struck by a strange radiation field that turned him into a four-headed monkeysheep.
I think Scott is a good enough director to know that you never come out and tell your audience what to believe. He personally believes that Deckard is a replicant but he makes it ambiguous in the film; Deckard may or may not be a replicant and there are hints that support both of these conclusions. The fact that he believes Deckard is a replicant means nothing because it's up to every viewer to decide what Deckard is.
I haven't seen Blade Runner in its entirely either. While spending a week at my sister's place in October, I saw she had it and figured I'd give it a look. I grew up with the 80s action, so I expected this to be even better since it gets so much praise. I couldn't even make it through the whole thing. There wasn't enough killer robots and far too much a) reflective pause and b) jazz piano.
It's...it's not really an action movie...
Our nation has been ruined into thinking that sci-fi necessarily means Star Trek.
I would say our nation has been ruined into thinking that sci-fi necessarally means Alien vs. Predator: Requiem.
Dracomicron on
0
NoneoftheaboveJust a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered Userregular
edited December 2007
The interesting thing about Blade Runner is that it takes an art house approach to an otherwise typical film concept. Ridley is a little like Spielberg, they're both "artist industrialists". They want to create art but they also know they have to sell it at the end of the day.
I just think Ridley is better at making those kind of films. Kubrick was best at it, and I know Ridley was influenced by Kubrick.
I tried to watch this many times as a kid but never got anywhere and always just stuck in Star Trek 2 or Empire Strikes Back in the VCR. I was like Indiana Solo doing more stuff how can this not be awesome?! Meh go Kirk GO!
I'm kinda tempted to get it but I need to see it somewhere else first.
the whole Rutger Hauer sacrifice thing becomes much more relevant if Deckard is a replicant. You see, there's this whole Neitzhe-ian thing going on, where Batty finds his god (the creator's name who I forget), kills his god (same creator, the dude with the crazy glasses), and then in the final scene becomes a Jesus figure (I mean the spikes in the hand? The doves?) and sacrifices the last of his life to save Deckard, who -- we can't say if Batty knows, although it's plausible since he had been up in the tower killing his god -- is now Batty's chosen replicant son, given a chance at freedom, life, and love with Sean Young.
So anyway I think the film is kinda trash if Deckard isn't a replicant. It took me like three viewings to draw the lines between the unicorn at the end and everything, and then like three more to see all the other subtle clues pointing to it. I love that movie.
Posts
ITT, more posts Jeffe would never want his wife to read. *bookmarked*
It's not the special fx that don't seem to hold up. It's the movie itself. At least, to me. Unlike good movies in the genre, that one just doesn't reward repeat viewings for me anymore. I mean, I can still enjoy it, but somehow, every time I watch it, it seems cheesier, and stylish with no depth.
I've seen an HD transfer (at 720p) and the movie looks good at that resolution, but that's it. Actually, the empty feeling I now get from watching it possibly stems from the fact that the movie hints at a lot more, but the plot is wrapped up so well in the end that there would almost be no point in a sequel.
Imagine if Star Wars (episode IV, for the faithful) never got any sequels. Now watch it again, and think: this is all there is. I don't know about you, but my own feeling would probably be "what a waste". And the movie wouldn't hold up as well, because of it.
Check out my new blog: http://50wordstories.ca
Also check out my old game design blog: http://stealmygamedesigns.blogspot.com
I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, but the way you justify it seems unfair to me. You present a somewhat unorthodox angle at which to look at the movie (seeing Rutger Hauer's character as the main character), and then you use that distorted view to claim that the movie is flawed.
I just bought the 5-disc collector's set (DVD... I'm not going to invest in any one of the two HD formats until a clear winner emerges) and I'll watch the various cuts this weekend, and then decide if I still believe that the second half of the movie holds up better than you seem to think. The tone certainly changes, but I'm not convinced the way you are that the change is for the worst. I'll reserve a more complete verdict once I've seen the Final Cut, and the original theatrical cut (it's been a really long while since I've seen that cut, enough that I don't remember the narration being a problem, as when I last heard it, it was the only versino of the movie, and I was still a kid who wouldn't have known better, anyway.)
Check out my new blog: http://50wordstories.ca
Also check out my old game design blog: http://stealmygamedesigns.blogspot.com
As for the debate: I do think BladeRunner is a great movie, but I'm not sure I'd place it as the end-all-and-be-all of cyberpunk/what have you. I prefer instead to take many parts of that genre and sort of moosh them together to imagine one big happy dystopia. For example, I always get parts of Neuromancer and BladeRunner mixed up, but I'm okay with departing from the canon; I just love the idea of "cyberpunk" too much to pick just one.
Also, I just read that Wired article on the Final Cut.
Deckard's dream at the piano, and then the tinfoil model that the weird cane guy leaves at the end.
New Director's cut is amazing, by the way.
All the reviews I've read have said that the Final Cut is voice-over-less, which makes sense because the studios added it after the fact.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
The Final Cut is supposed to be Ridley Scott's definitive vision, and he sure didn't like the voice-over.
Also, there is no "theatrical version without voice-over" unless you consider the limited release that the Final Cut version got (did the 90's Director's Cut get a limited release as well?) There's only 2 "official" theatrical versions: the "regular" one and the "European" one which has a few gorier/more violent scenes left in. Both of these have the voice over.
Check out my new blog: http://50wordstories.ca
Also check out my old game design blog: http://stealmygamedesigns.blogspot.com
To elaborate:
also
daydream, I think. slightly different imo, though I guess not necessarily.
There's more, too, like the insanely awkward love scene, like the two of them have no idea what the hell human romance is, but I gotta run so I can't really elaborate too much.
Deckard being a replicant, for me, is like getting to the end of a slasher movie only to have the slain murderer open his eyes, negating the significance of the characters' struggles up to that point.
I think the unicorn origami was originally meant by the writer to show that Rachel was a dying breed or a fictional creation.
Watch the spoilers. -- ElJeffe
Yeah, I think I saw the unicorn imagery as just an image that could apply to everyone, rather than something connected to only one person. But I suppose I can buy Scott's idea; it just didn't jump out at me, or most anyone I've talked to about the movie, unless they've already read about this particular intent. Did you guys really get that impression without reading about it elsewhere?
To shutz: The original theatrical release in theaters didn't have the voice over, if you were talking to me -- it's the video/dvds, though, that I'm having trouble with. Thank you guys for notes about the Final Cut, though!
It's Scott's movie, but I personally think that it's just a fancy of his, not anything that's really earned. The unicorn origami works just fine without the dream sequence.
I don't see the point in having spoilers for a movie thats 25 years old. Sure there is some people who hadn't seen it but come on!
In the movie as presented by the director — the director's cut, that is — it is strongly implied that he is. It's not the only divergence from the story of the book. And I'll certainly believe that Ford didn't want to be the ambiguous character, but I think there's more than one obvious explanation for that.
Like I said, it's Scott's movie, and I'm fine with what he wants to do, I just don't think the "reveal" is earned or necessary.
That said, I'm intrigued by your four-headed monkeysheep idea, and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Fair point, to an extent. If something is vague or ambiguous, then interpreting it as you see fit is fine. When the guy who made the film says, "this is what this means," you're more than welcome to say, "no, I think it actually means this," but you're kind of wrong. I mean, you can want it to mean whatever you want, or believe that it would be better if it meant something different.
Personally, I like to think that Deckard is a tomato struck by a strange radiation field that turned him into a four-headed monkeysheep.
Example, from another Ridley Scott film: In the original Alien, the screenwriter wrote the parts to all be gender-neutral (first names are never used!), and he suggested that at least one crew member should be female. But he, by his own admission, never expected Ripley to be cast as a woman. That was Ridley Scott's decision.
It would have been an entirely different experience had Ripley been a dude.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's...it's not really an action movie...
Our nation has been ruined into thinking that sci-fi necessarily means Star Trek.
I would say our nation has been ruined into thinking that sci-fi necessarally means Alien vs. Predator: Requiem.
I just think Ridley is better at making those kind of films. Kubrick was best at it, and I know Ridley was influenced by Kubrick.
I'm kinda tempted to get it but I need to see it somewhere else first.
So anyway I think the film is kinda trash if Deckard isn't a replicant. It took me like three viewings to draw the lines between the unicorn at the end and everything, and then like three more to see all the other subtle clues pointing to it. I love that movie.