chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
Well, if Deck's a robot, he's a shitty robot.
Even aside from cop skills discussed, he can't fight as well as a stripperbot.
That's some dumb design work.
And, for what it's worth, if he's human the central theme is much further in the direction of clever. Very far from the book, of course. It's saying that the human's less human than the android who is, supposedly, incapable of empathy, and there's no real difference. When the protagonist (hero seems a stretch) realizes this, he can finally treat Rachel as a person instead of a glorified toaster, and their relationship can be a thing.
If he's another toaster, it's a B story in a bad EC horror comic. The ghost hunter... is a ghost! People and androids are different. The end! No moral!
Foolproofthats what my hearts becomein that place you dare not look staring back at youRegistered Userregular
the lack of empathy is the detectable difference between replicants and humans. The cold blooded bounty hunter that can retire faster and stronger beings might be an exceptional human or he might be an advanced replicant with false memories. It isn't a matter of is he one or the other, it is a matter of how he acts even without knowing for sure.
People get all wet for Data on STNG and his struggle to understand what it is to be human but they piss all over a far more mature and nuanced version of the same kind of character struggle. People don't want good science fiction they want bite sized kids stuff. Its too bad for people who prefer stories with some depth to them.
Even aside from cop skills discussed, he can't fight as well as a stripperbot.
That's some dumb design work.
And, for what it's worth, if he's human the central theme is much further in the direction of clever. Very far from the book, of course. It's saying that the human's less human than the android who is, supposedly, incapable of empathy, and there's no real difference. When the protagonist (hero seems a stretch) realizes this, he can finally treat Rachel as a person instead of a glorified toaster, and their relationship can be a thing.
If he's another toaster, it's a B story in a bad EC horror comic. The ghost hunter... is a ghost! People and androids are different. The end! No moral!
what the fuck
the replicant thing is a central theme of the book
I guess the Scott brothers decided to base their entire future on posts on my blog. They're making a pseudo-prequel to Alien, another Blade Runner, and apparently they've got their eyes on a Wild Bunch remake. This is, like, one of those bad genie wishes that RL Stine was always warning me about.
I guess the Scott brothers decided to base their entire future on posts on my blog. They're making a pseudo-prequel to Alien, another Blade Runner, and apparently they've got their eyes on a Wild Bunch remake. This is, like, one of those bad genie wishes that RL Stine was always warning me about.
The twist is that you are actually RL Stine and you wrote all those books in your sleep. Also the books are all ghosts.
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
Even aside from cop skills discussed, he can't fight as well as a stripperbot.
That's some dumb design work.
And, for what it's worth, if he's human the central theme is much further in the direction of clever. Very far from the book, of course. It's saying that the human's less human than the android who is, supposedly, incapable of empathy, and there's no real difference. When the protagonist (hero seems a stretch) realizes this, he can finally treat Rachel as a person instead of a glorified toaster, and their relationship can be a thing.
If he's another toaster, it's a B story in a bad EC horror comic. The ghost hunter... is a ghost! People and androids are different. The end! No moral!
what the fuck
the replicant thing is a central theme of the book
I might be misspeaking.
I do that, sorry.
Might give it another go, without confidence. Also might be misreading, but I got a tiny bit more confidence there.
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.
really? i found the replicants in the book quite relatable - although resch is kind of a dick, the commissioner has a certain realization of the gravity of the situation, kind of like a replicant K.
maybe i should reread it, but from memory i don't agree.
Munkus BeaverYou don't have to attend every argument you are invited to.Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPAregular
Genesis does what replicant.
Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
0
Options
Olivawgood name, isn't it?the foot of mt fujiRegistered Userregular
Deckard is asked by Rachael if he has ever taken the Voight-Kampff test himself during her test. This one line in the film can change the entire way the story is experienced. One of the most artful things about the movie is how it works on different levels in different ways. Was Deckard just lucky to survive and even defeat killer androids or was he just a better model used by humans to hunt his own kind. Is the love story between a man and a replicant or between two replicants who are just discovering their true nature. The ambiguity lets this movie be different things for different people and it captures the mood of a Philip K Dick story better than any other film based on any of his works.
Anyone worried about the new movie should just put it out of their head and watch the original again or even better read some of the books that have Deckard as a character.
DO NOT DO THIS
DO NOT
Also I am excited for another Blade Runner movie because Ridley Scott is directing and I like Ridley Scott
Besides, no one in their right mind would ever fund a sequel to a Blade Runner movie expecting to make money off the name
It's not like the Star Trek reboot or something, there's no way you're going to put butts in seats just saying the words "BLADE RUNNER"
Creative bankruptcy is debatable, but greed I think can be ruled out
really? i found the replicants in the book quite relatable - although resch is kind of a dick, the commissioner has a certain realization of the gravity of the situation, kind of like a replicant K.
maybe i should reread it, but from memory i don't agree.
Resch is human, I'm pretty sure. And a dick, yeah.
Got that way thanks to Rachel. And his commissioner is a minor character who was trying to run a very long con. Makes sense he'd put on a nice face.
Meanwhile, Deckard's commissioner is human. And I can see relatable, but that doesn't mean morally acceptable. In this case, anyway. Flipped open the copy I had near, got the bit about them cutting the legs off a spider, Rachel killing Deckard's goat, and their man Friendly's TV show reveal that Mercerism is a "scam", which is, in the world of the book, a bit of a cruel, petty nads kick at almost every human on the planet.
Of course, that doesn't make killing them right, even when it's necessary. Last act denouement leans heavy on that. Replicants are alive, so people pity them, and they deserve pity. At the same time, they're a threat to everything worthwhile in the world, which makes killers like Deckard a necessity.
Bit odd at times, which is standard Phillip K Dick from what I've seen, but yeah. Replicants are a lot less, well, nice than in the movie.
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
the workprint is, I think, the best version of this film
though the final cut is also quite good
director's cut, not so much
0
Options
NoneoftheaboveJust a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered Userregular
The way Blade Runner was made, few can deny it is cinematic art. But can the movie be appreciated for the storytelling element alone by serious film critics? Is it mostly superficial visual fluff at the core?
Criticism towards Blade Runner I can agree with is how vague, unconventional and bizarre in how the narrative is presented. Personally I like it, even though many do not.
0
Options
Shortytouching the meatIntergalactic Cool CourtRegistered Userregular
oh and I'd just like to add that I want deckard's ridiculous double-barreled bolt-action revolver.
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.
Whatever happened to Ridley Scott making an adaptation of The Forever War? That was supposed to be happening at some point, right?
It was going to happen, but it took so long in pre-production that technology had progressed too far and all their characters and devices felt too archaic.
Anyone going to brave the theaters and watch Conan?
you fucking better believe it
It's getting blasted pretty hard, but I think that was to be expected. I am planning on watching it sometime this weekend, because I can't help myself.
Anyone going to brave the theaters and watch Conan?
you fucking better believe it
It's getting blasted pretty hard, but I think that was to be expected. I am planning on watching it sometime this weekend, because I can't help myself.
I don't give a shit. I love Conan too much to care about what soft-handed civilized men think about him
0
Options
chiasaur11Never doubt a raccoon.Do you think it's trademarked?Registered Userregular
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.
Anyone going to brave the theaters and watch Conan?
you fucking better believe it
It's getting blasted pretty hard, but I think that was to be expected. I am planning on watching it sometime this weekend, because I can't help myself.
I don't give a shit. I love Conan too much to care about what soft-handed civilized men think about him
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 have successfully shown that the movie is different from the book
i hope you realize how pointless this exercise was
Anyone going to brave the theaters and watch Conan?
you fucking better believe it
It's getting blasted pretty hard, but I think that was to be expected. I am planning on watching it sometime this weekend, because I can't help myself.
I don't give a shit. I love Conan too much to care about what soft-handed civilized men think about him
Hold me you brute
no, no, you gotta use the line from the game: NSFW blurry boobies
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.
Anyone going to brave the theaters and watch Conan?
you fucking better believe it
It's getting blasted pretty hard, but I think that was to be expected. I am planning on watching it sometime this weekend, because I can't help myself.
I don't give a shit. I love Conan too much to care about what soft-handed civilized men think about him
Hold me you brute
no, no, you gotta use the line from the game: NSFW blurry boobies
Posts
So really Gaff is the hero here
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
Even aside from cop skills discussed, he can't fight as well as a stripperbot.
That's some dumb design work.
And, for what it's worth, if he's human the central theme is much further in the direction of clever. Very far from the book, of course. It's saying that the human's less human than the android who is, supposedly, incapable of empathy, and there's no real difference. When the protagonist (hero seems a stretch) realizes this, he can finally treat Rachel as a person instead of a glorified toaster, and their relationship can be a thing.
If he's another toaster, it's a B story in a bad EC horror comic. The ghost hunter... is a ghost! People and androids are different. The end! No moral!
Why I fear the ocean.
And for the last time Zhora was an assassin
You don't seem to remember much about the movie
Amazon Wishlist: http://www.amazon.com/BusterK/wishlist/3JPEKJGX9G54I/ref=cm_wl_search_bin_1
Just let it go
God I love Smiley so much
I laughed loud enough for the neighbors to hear when the balloon was revealed
"ahahahaha Briar, you dumb fucker"
and Jesus holy shit did Thorn turn into a boss at the end
WATCH IT
People get all wet for Data on STNG and his struggle to understand what it is to be human but they piss all over a far more mature and nuanced version of the same kind of character struggle. People don't want good science fiction they want bite sized kids stuff. Its too bad for people who prefer stories with some depth to them.
what the fuck
the replicant thing is a central theme of the book
The twist is that you are actually RL Stine and you wrote all those books in your sleep. Also the books are all ghosts.
I might be misspeaking.
I do that, sorry.
Might give it another go, without confidence. Also might be misreading, but I got a tiny bit more confidence there.
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.
Why I fear the ocean.
maybe i should reread it, but from memory i don't agree.
DO NOT DO THIS
DO NOT
Also I am excited for another Blade Runner movie because Ridley Scott is directing and I like Ridley Scott
Besides, no one in their right mind would ever fund a sequel to a Blade Runner movie expecting to make money off the name
It's not like the Star Trek reboot or something, there's no way you're going to put butts in seats just saying the words "BLADE RUNNER"
Creative bankruptcy is debatable, but greed I think can be ruled out
PSN ID : DetectiveOlivaw | TWITTER | STEAM ID | NEVER FORGET
Resch is human, I'm pretty sure. And a dick, yeah.
Got that way thanks to Rachel. And his commissioner is a minor character who was trying to run a very long con. Makes sense he'd put on a nice face.
Meanwhile, Deckard's commissioner is human. And I can see relatable, but that doesn't mean morally acceptable. In this case, anyway. Flipped open the copy I had near, got the bit about them cutting the legs off a spider, Rachel killing Deckard's goat, and their man Friendly's TV show reveal that Mercerism is a "scam", which is, in the world of the book, a bit of a cruel, petty nads kick at almost every human on the planet.
Of course, that doesn't make killing them right, even when it's necessary. Last act denouement leans heavy on that. Replicants are alive, so people pity them, and they deserve pity. At the same time, they're a threat to everything worthwhile in the world, which makes killers like Deckard a necessity.
Bit odd at times, which is standard Phillip K Dick from what I've seen, but yeah. Replicants are a lot less, well, nice than in the movie.
Why I fear the ocean.
though the final cut is also quite good
director's cut, not so much
Criticism towards Blade Runner I can agree with is how vague, unconventional and bizarre in how the narrative is presented. Personally I like it, even though many do not.
All the promo shots for Prometheus have looked awesome so far, I am excited!
Too bad Chia doesn't get it.
But then again, who does?
at least she's really hot
Yes you do.
edit: I should mention that I saw an advanced screening of Warrior, rather than doing illegal shit to watch it.
Coran Attack!
you should go help adam savage, then.
and make me one while you're at it
you fucking better believe it
It's getting blasted pretty hard, but I think that was to be expected. I am planning on watching it sometime this weekend, because I can't help myself.
I don't give a shit. I love Conan too much to care about what soft-handed civilized men think about him
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.
Why I fear the ocean.
Hold me you brute
you have successfully shown that the movie is different from the book
i hope you realize how pointless this exercise was
no, no, you gotta use the line from the game: NSFW blurry boobies
You keep talking about the book as if it has much to do with the film.