I'm still trying to figure out why there are people convinced he is, becuase all I'm getting on the subject is the unicorn dream thing and a light trick.
Blade Runner 2
- Thread starter WarpFactorZ
- Start date
I'm still trying to figure out why there are people convinced he is, becuase all I'm getting on the subject is the unicorn dream thing and a light trick.
Well, outside the movie, the main reason was that Ridley Scott decided that must be the case when he put together his director's cut. If you're into auteur theory and privilege the director 100% over the people who actually wrote the story, that's all you need. I tend to look to the writers' intent, myself.
Well, surely a film is the collaborative result of the input of the writers, director, actors, etc. You can't give 100% credit to anyone in a collaboration. The writers decide what's in the script (ideally, although in the Hollywood feature industry they're usually at the mercy of what the director and producer tell them to put in it or cut out of it), but the script is just the blueprint for the film. Acting, directing, and editing can change the content or intent of the script in any number of ways.
Somebody once said (I'm thinking maybe Frank Marshall or Lawrence Kasdan?) that there are three different movies -- the one that's written, the one that's filmed, and the one that comes out of the editing room. When directors' cuts come into the picture, that can add a fourth (or more).
Scott isn't directing, Denis Villeneuve is. He's not a clone of Scott, so should be judged on his own merits.
Movies adapted from novels are two separate, creatively related works. Unless the John Anderton in Spielberg's Minority Report really chose to kill his predicted victim.
In the Dexter novels Cody and Astor become murderers. Very different from the series.
In the Dexter novels Cody and Astor become murderers. Very different from the series.
In 2014 BBC Radio 4 adapted DADOES with James Purefoy as Deckard and Jessica Raine as Rachael. There were some interesting things about the production -- it attempted to meld the film noir feel of Blade Runner's theatrical cuts with Philip K. Dick's story -- and what I found especially interesting was the ending. It's a very ambiguous ending, and it implies that Deckard lets Batty go. It was an interesting beat to play, as it means that Deckard has grown.
Interesting will have to see if it's available via BOB (An academic thing that stores radio and TV in the UK).
First, the "cold fish" reference is from the horrible narration in the original theatrical release, so most people ignore that.
Second, I personally interpret Deckard's introduction as another sign he's a replicant. He's just sitting there reading a newspaper, waiting for dinner... almost like he was dropped off there and turned on.
I'm not going to link to it directly, but it appears the whole thing is on YouTube. I searched for "purefoy do androids dream," hoping to find it on CD or digital download, and instead my top link was to YouTube.
If it were that easy, why not just drop him off at Police Headquarters and turn him on? Why the ruse?
Clearly they wanted Deckard to have memories about quitting the force and to be grumpy about not getting his lunch so he would be uncooperative and Bryant would have to threaten him into taking the job, rather than activating a replicant who would just do the damn job. That makes sense, right?
Or, alternatively, it wasn't the cops who activated replicant Deckard, it was Tyrell. He wanted a replicant who believed he was a blade runner to learn to have enough empathy to protect Rachel after setting in motion a series of events that would put her in jeopardy in the first place. That could be it.
Or, alternatively, it wasn't the cops who activated replicant Deckard, it was Tyrell. He wanted a replicant who believed he was a blade runner to learn to have enough empathy to protect Rachel after setting in motion a series of events that would put her in jeopardy in the first place. That could be it.
Last edited:
Maybe Deckard had a replicant version of himself made. That would satisfy both sides! He's both a replicant and not a replicant! (And yes, I'm fully aware that that would satisfy neither side.)
I thought that was the point, that the humans were cold and almost mechanical and the replicants were actually emotional.
I don't believe Deckard is anything but a tired man that hates what he is but doesn't have the courage to change until after he sees how hard Batty is trying to change but can't.
Does Batty need to change, though? That implies he's the one in the wrong. Batty is an escaped slave fighting for the liberation of his people. Sure, his methods are violent, but that's often what freedom fighters are forced to resort to when the system allows them no other recourse. And Batty does save Deckard's life -- which arguably shows that he can change. That's when Deckard realizes that he, Deckard, is actually the villain of the story, not the hero, and that he needs to stop being the villain.
I wasn't clear, but, when I said change, I meant try to change his fate, to not die at 4 years old or whatever was happening that shut him down. What you said after was another view point, my counter that Batty only was either just afraid of dying and trying to justify his desire to live longer by claiming to be a real boy that saw things that shouldn't be forgotten. He's a product that went haywire and needed to be shut off, just like the other 3.
I think Blade Runner is still talked about because, besides the incredible art direction and design, there is no hero.
Maybe Gaff is. But he's really not the focus of the movie
I think Blade Runner is still talked about because, besides the incredible art direction and design, there is no hero.
Maybe Gaff is. But he's really not the focus of the movie
That's what slavers always say about their slaves, that they're subhuman. I think if you come away believing that about the replicants, then you've completely missed the entire point of the movie. (And I have to wonder if maybe you've only seen the theatrical cut, because the narration dumbs down the climax considerably by dismissing Batty's pivotal act of humanity as just some weird, meaningless aberration in the behavior of a villain. It wasn't until I saw the movie without the narration that I understood the real point of the climax and started to like the film.)
I didn't mean they literally dropped him off and turned him on.
My apologies then. I missed your point.