[Aptorian]

I felt like I was watching scenes, cut out pieces of story, rather than a flowing narrative. You see Ford doing some interviews. You see the androids being weird. You see Ford drinking. You see that android chick hanging out with some creepy guy. You see Ford drinking. You have a couple of action scenes. Another scene where the androids are being sad. Ford is drinking some more. Then it culminates in a really weird fight that seems more like an allegory for something else. And then you have the sad ending. A lot of the events feel random. Why are the androids masquerading as humans if they know they are being hunted? Why not just lay low? (Yeah, I know, all they really want is to be a real boy, to have a life even if its just a short one, but come on...). Why is Fords character so praised for what he does? He doesn't seem particularly great at his job and is obviously a wreck of a man. Again, here I know they are playing on the popular film noir with the flawed (anti)hero who gets knocked around a bunch but gets his man in the end. Still, I thought the story was dull and not very well told.

Anyway, this wasn't meant to derail a thread about Tony Scott. We could always continue this discussion in the Movie thread.

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 21 August 2012 - 04:46 PM

[QuickTidal]

Aptorius, on 21 August 2012 - 04:44 PM, said:

Why are the androids masquerading as humans if they know they are being hunted? Why not just lay low? (Yeah, I know, all they really want is to be a real boy, to have a life even if its just a short one, but come on...)

You answered your own question there. Come on what? It's a perfectly logical reason to do what they did.

Quote

Why is Fords character so praised for what he does?

Deckard used to be known as a GOOD Blade Runner, he's been going through rough times as of late. His boss expects him to be able to handle the situation with the skin jobs...but the movie proves he's not totally up to the task...amongst another reason (see next reply)

Quote

He doesn't seem particularly great at his job and is obviously a wreck of a man.

Deckard is a replicant. Which helps explain his failing mental capacity as he's being led to believe this over the course of the film and his interactions with Rachael. He's not a human Blade Runner anymore, he's a replicant being tested going up against his own (unbeknownst to him). There are those who believe Roy is fully aware of this from the beginning of their interactions together.

Quote

Again, here I know they are playing on the popular film noir with the flawed (anti)hero who gets knocked around a bunch but gets his man in the end. Still, I thought the story was dull and not very well told.

Perhaps you need another viewing, with a different mindset?

[Gnaw]

QuickTidal, on 20 August 2012 - 06:54 PM, said:

polishgenius, on 20 August 2012 - 05:10 PM, said:

He was pretty uneven but his best films were awesome. I've said it before that I reckon Tony > Ridley. Unstoppable, Top Gun, True Romance, Man on Fire - all top, top class films.

While the bolded statement is pure lunacy, considering Tony's track record compared with his older brother's...I agree that he has some SOLID, solid hits to his name...
.

Agree with you. But comparing the two is a subjective thing, so *shrug*. I liked "The Last Boyscout" and "Enemy of the State".
Edit to add: Blade Runner like or dislike is another *shrug*. I highly recommend the book "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".

This post has been edited by Gnaw: 21 August 2012 - 05:35 PM

[Abyss]

Conflicting new reports now (starting, naturally, w TMZ) that he did not have inoperable brain cancer, that he had a mental condition, that he was totally fine....

[Aptorian]

Probably. I was also wondering if it was the directors cut I was watching or the vanilla version. They didn't say.

Is it canon that Fords character is a replicant? I know that it is a popular theory, but is this something that Scott has come out and out right confirmed? First of all I would say that knowing the truth would cheapen the character. Better to leave the viewers wondering about the true nature of Fords character and what it really means to be a human being. Second of all it would make his role in the film a paradox. If he is a replicant meant to be used against other replicants, why isn't he designed to be stronger, faster, more durable, more intelligent, less prone to drinking and pouting? Is it because he would be a better hunter if thinks he's human? Doesn't really make sense, a robot thinking like a robot should be better able to figure out what another robot is thinking. It's almost like he's built to fail. But if he was designed to be flawed, why use him against these androids? It was of the utmost importance that they be stopped. The government or who ever was shitting themeselves over these robots being on the lose because they were so dangerous so why use him, an experimental prototype, knowing what is at stake?

I don't think he is a replicant (I don't even care if he is one according to the script) it's a better film if he's human.

This post has been edited by Aptorius: 21 August 2012 - 05:41 PM

[QuickTidal]

Aptorius, on 21 August 2012 - 05:39 PM, said:

Probably. I was also wondering if it was the directors cut I was watching or the vanilla version. They didn't say.

Is it canon that Fords character is a replicant? I know that it is a popular theory, but is this something that Scott has come out and out right confirmed? First of all I would say that knowing the truth would cheapen the character. Better to leave the viewers wondering about the true nature of Fords character and what it really means to be a human being. Second of all it would make his role in the film a paradox. If he is a replicant meant to be used against other replicants, why isn't he designed to be stronger, faster, more durable, more intelligent, less prone to drinking and pouting? Is it because he would be a better hunter if thinks he's human? Doesn't really make sense, a robot thinking like a robot should be better able to figure out what another robot is thinking. It's almost like he's built to fail. But if he was designed to be flawed, why use him against these androids? It was of the utmost importance that they be stopped. The government or who ever was shitting themeselves over these robots being on the lose because they were so dangerous so why use him, an experimental prototype, knowing what is at stake?

I don't think he is a replicant (I don't even care if he is one according to the script) it's a better film if he's human.

BLADE RUNNER: FINAL CUT is the most definitive version.

Re: Deckard Replicant: Yes, Ridley did come out and say he was one...but the actors and one of the two screenwriters wanted him to be human still. See the following entry form the Wiki:

The question of whether Deckard is intended to be a human or a replicant has been an ongoing controversy since the film's release.[63] Both Michael Deeley and Harrison Ford wanted Deckard to be human while Hampton Fancher preferred ambiguity.[64] Ridley Scott has confirmed that in his vision Deckard is a replicant.[65][66] Deckard's unicorn dream sequence, inserted into the Director's Cut, coinciding with Gaff's parting gift of an origami unicorn is seen by many as showing that Deckard is a replicant—as Gaff could have accessed Deckard's implanted memories.[55][67] The interpretation that Deckard is a replicant is challenged by others who believe the unicorn imagery shows that the characters, whether human or replicant, share the same dreams and recognize their affinity,[68] or that the absence of a decisive answer is crucial to the film's main theme.[69] The inherent ambiguity and uncertainty of the film, as well as its textual richness, have permitted viewers to see it from their own perspectives.[70]

Re your comments about why he would do the things he did as a replicant, since a stronger, smarter one ect....

A. A replicant is not a robot. that's first and foremost. The point of a replicant is to ape humanity, not be a robot. Think Battlestar's Cylons.

B. Tyrell's whole point in existing was to test all the boundaries between human and replicant. He made Deckard. Arguably he made Rachael as Deckards perfect match. It was BECAUSE he did these things that Deckard is the perfect replicant. The final version is so indistinguishable from humans that his soul is in question. That's the point of him. The police Deckard works for don't know he's a replicant, only his partner Gaff does. They weren't the ones sending him against his own kind....Tyrell was. It was orchestrated by him from moment one. And Tyrell's goal was never to catch Roy and Co. It was to send Deckard up against them to see which side if any came out on top. Which dovetails with Roy's final speech on the rooftop after he saves Deckard.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 21 August 2012 - 06:16 PM

[Gnaw]

D, on 21 August 2012 - 10:23 AM, said:

Spoilered so no mod god wrath

Spoiler

No one kills themselves out of pique - it's usually either a result of very

serious consideration or when in a constant state of extreme mental trauma. I think all forms of help should be provided to the suicidal to try and persuade them otherwise, but only to a point - if they are fully convinced of their desire to die, it only causes more trauma actively preventing them (and in cases of extreme disability, failing to act to enable them). As someone who believes in the rights and freedom of individuals, I think the view of suicide as 'selfish' belies the point that it is also often selfish of those who love the would-be-suicider to feel that the autonomy of that individual should be delimited for the sake of their being forced to spend more time in a world they can no longer cope with. Yes, children do change the situation to a certain degree, but only because they are dependents, and therefore their autonomy is diminished by the loss of an active parent, because their love for their parents is often immature and lacks a true understanding of their parents' right to individual autonomy, and because they are unlikely to truly understand the 'why' of the suicidal state, which will typically lead to them interpreting a parent's suicide as evidence of the absence of that parents' love for them (whereas I would argue that love for others and suicidal tendencies often coexist [some might argue that the parent who 'truly' loved their children would not kill themselves, but that's just pure 'no true Scotsman']).

F**k me running. Sorry, I meant for the rep to be positive. Just noticed I hit the minus button. I hope an administrator can fix that. Many apologies D'iversify. If one can, please do so and delete this post.

[Abyss]

Gnaw, on 21 August 2012 - 06:17 PM, said:

... I meant for the rep to be positive. Just noticed I hit the minus button. I hope an administrator can fix that. Many apologies D'iversify. If one can, please do so and delete this post.

Just pos-rep a different post by D'iversify and it balances out. Then pos rep a separate post to give the plusrep you intended.
Then pos-rep me for this epic explanation.

[D'rek]

I also found Blade Runner boring. I have no idea which version I watched nor any interest in watching another version of it, despite some friends' occasional insistence.

[polishgenius]

QuickTidal, on 20 August 2012 - 11:16 PM, said:

The majority of Ridley's films are bonafide hits, while a lot of Tony's flicks haven't been greatly recieved (DOMINO for example). For Box office clout, Ridley wins hands down.

Apart from the fact that using box office as the judge means that Michael Bay is one of the greatest directors ever and James Cameron is the greatest, an idea which brings me out in cold sweats, that's just untrue. Tony Scott made six films which made less than 100mil at the box office - Ridley has so far made ten. Tony made eight films which made over 150mil, of which three made at least 200- Ridley has made seven. It wasn't till Gladiator that he started being a consistent mega-earner.

And among the lowest earners were True Romance and Blade Runner, just to hammer the box-office =/= quality thing home.

Mind, like Apt I didn't like Blade Runner, though I do need to rewatch it in the right frame of mind - I wasn't expecting lots of action necessarily, but I was expecting a more epic, purposeful feel. And I normally love a mood film.