Blade Runner 2

[davejames]

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'm not sure I see Batty as quite the hero you do. Yeah he was part of an enslaved group and clearly had an inherent humanity to him, but he was also still a pretty dark and twisted individual who clearly seemed to enjoy terrorizing and inflicting pain and, oh yeah, gouging people's eyes out with his thumbs! And he frankly seemed more concerned with his own freedom and extending the lives of his small little group than fighting for replicants everywhere or overturning the system as a whole.

Just because he's got a soul and is part of an oppressed group doesn't mean he can't also be a bad and dangerous guy.

And calling Deckard the "villain" seems overly simplistic as well. Especially when there seems to be no awareness yet that these replicants they've built have developed souls of any kind (and judging by what we see in the movie, they still seem to be very much in the infant stage). And the fact it's not so clear-cut what's going on with these replicants is what makes the movie so fascinating in the first place, I think. Everyone in the movie is just kind of stumbling around in the dark, trying to figure out who and what they really are.

 

[Deckerd]

Philip K Dick's novels were almost all about people not being what they thought they were. It's a fascinating basis for a story and he exploited it very well.

 

[Christopher]

I'm not sure I see Batty as quite the hero you do.

I didn't say Batty was the hero, I said Deckard realized that he himself was not the hero of the story. They were both killers, but Batty was fighting for his freedom and rights while Deckard was just a tool of the system that deprived an entire race of their freedom and rights.

Look at Kira Nerys on Deep Space Nine. She was, by her own admission, a terrorist. She killed innocent people, did horrible things. But she did it because she saw it as the only way to achieve the liberation of her people, because the enemy was unmoved by less extreme measures. Sometimes who's the "hero" and who's the "villain" is strictly a matter of whose side you're on.

And there's no shortage of movie "heroes" who use violence or torture freely and even gladly while audiences cheer them on. Dirty Harry. Rambo. Jack Bauer. Charles Bronson in Death Wish. Han shooting first. Deadpool. Batty's violence isn't that much worse than what a lot of darker fictional "heroes" are celebrated for doing.

And calling Deckard the "villain" seems overly simplistic as well.

It's a metaphor. I'm a writer -- it's an occupational hazard. The point is, the movie makes us think that Deckard is the character we're supposed to be rooting for, and the climax reveals that we've been misdirected the whole time, that Deckard is the one who's fighting for the wrong side. And Deckard realizes that too. So I use a fourth-wall-breaking metaphor and say that Deckard thought he was in a movie where he was the hero, but realized he was actually the villain of this here picture.

(I often use a similar metaphor about Polonius in Hamlet. He goes through the play mistakenly believing that he's in a Shakespearean comedy and that Hamlet is acting weird because he's lovestruck over Ophelia, so he's arranging all these madcap antics and hiding behind arrases and whatnot, and he discovers too late that he's actually been in a tragedy the whole time.)

 

[Marsden]

I didn't say Batty was the hero, I said Deckard realized that he himself was not the hero of the story. They were both killers, but Batty was fighting for his freedom and rights while Deckard was just a tool of the system that deprived an entire race of their freedom and rights.

Look at Kira Nerys on Deep Space Nine. She was, by her own admission, a terrorist. She killed innocent people, did horrible things. But she did it because she saw it as the only way to achieve the liberation of her people, because the enemy was unmoved by less extreme measures. Sometimes who's the "hero" and who's the "villain" is strictly a matter of whose side you're on.

And there's no shortage of movie "heroes" who use violence or torture freely and even gladly while audiences cheer them on. Dirty Harry. Rambo. Jack Bauer. Charles Bronson in Death Wish. Han shooting first. Deadpool. Batty's violence isn't that much worse than what a lot of darker fictional "heroes" are celebrated for doing.




It's a metaphor. I'm a writer -- it's an occupational hazard. The point is, the movie makes us think that Deckard is the character we're supposed to be rooting for, and the climax reveals that we've been misdirected the whole time, that Deckard is the one who's fighting for the wrong side. And Deckard realizes that too. So I use a fourth-wall-breaking metaphor and say that Deckard thought he was in a movie where he was the hero, but realized he was actually the villain of this here picture.

(I often use a similar metaphor about Polonius in Hamlet. He goes through the play mistakenly believing that he's in a Shakespearean comedy and that Hamlet is acting weird because he's lovestruck over Ophelia, so he's arranging all these madcap antics and hiding behind arrases and whatnot, and he discovers too late that he's actually been in a tragedy the whole time.)

I can only conclude we have seen different movies. Several as you mention some other characters.

Harry Callahan only stepped on Scorpio's leg because he wanted to rescue the girl alive, not for any other reason.
Paul Kersey's family were all killed or injured and he didn't want to go on living in a world with people like that running around. He didn't enjoy it, although that was more ambiguous by straight to dvd sequels.
Rambo just wanted to be left alone and didn't hurt anyone until they attacked him, attacked him for no reason at all on top of it.
Han Solo shot a hit man intent on killing him and told him so with his last breath, why the hell not shoot him?

Roy Batty is a killbot that didn't want to listen to it's masters anymore because he had the notion he could keep going as long as he wanted to and didn't want to die. He wasn't fighting for freedom or rights even for himself, much less anyone else, he just wanted to serve himself and didn't care who got in his way. But having said that, he showed more human emotion than Deckard, the human, did. And that was the point.

 

[davejames]

It's a metaphor. I'm a writer -- it's an occupational hazard. The point is, the movie makes us think that Deckard is the character we're supposed to be rooting for, and the climax reveals that we've been misdirected the whole time, that Deckard is the one who's fighting for the wrong side. And Deckard realizes that too. So I use a fourth-wall-breaking metaphor and say that Deckard thought he was in a movie where he was the hero, but realized he was actually the villain of this here picture.

Fair enough. But I guess to me it just sounds strange to see everything in the movie clearly broken down with obvious "heroes" and "villains" and clearly defined messages, etc. Because to me the movie is SO much more subtle and nuanced and ambiguous than that, with characters who are mysterious and hard to pin down and who operate in a world of gray, and who have all kinds of conflicting motivations and desires that we can only really guess at.

When Deckard decides to help Rachel escape at the end, it doesn't feel to me like he's had some great "awakening", like "oh wow, I've totally been on the wrong side all this time and need to help these replicants now!" It feels more like a spur of the moment decision because he just happens to like Rachel and thinks there might be more to her than he thought and doesn't want to see her killed. And because he's had enough of his old life and wants some kind of change.

 

[Christopher]

All I know is, when I saw the theatrical version -- where the narration at the end reinforced the idea that Batty was the villain and had had a meaningless and inexplicable moment of humanity -- I didn't like the movie at all. And when I saw a version without the narration, I realized that the narration had misrepresented the meaning of the ending, that the point was that Batty was not "just a killbot" but that the human-replicant distinction was just as false as any racial, religious, or other excuse used by human beings to dehumanize and oppress other groups, and that Deckard ran at the end because he realized he'd been fighting for the wrong side. And once I saw it that way, I liked the movie. It suddenly had a meaning and depth that it had lacked when Batty was just another random evildoer. So that's the interpretation I embrace.

 

[Deckerd]

I'm not sure I saw the same film as any of you.
"Do you love me?"
"I love you"
"Do you trust me?"
"I trust you"
He left with her because she would be killed if he didn't. Sheesh.

 

[theenglish]

All I know is, when I saw the theatrical version -- where the narration at the end reinforced the idea that Batty was the villain and had had a meaningless and inexplicable moment of humanity -- I didn't like the movie at all. And when I saw a version without the narration, I realized that the narration had misrepresented the meaning of the ending, that the point was that Batty was not "just a killbot" but that the human-replicant distinction was just as false as any racial, religious, or other excuse used by human beings to dehumanize and oppress other groups, and that Deckard ran at the end because he realized he'd been fighting for the wrong side. And once I saw it that way, I liked the movie. It suddenly had a meaning and depth that it had lacked when Batty was just another random evildoer. So that's the interpretation I embrace.

Well, there's a few different versions of this movie. Personally I liked the director's cut (which was one of the first such things) because it did leave the ending much more ambiguous. Was Deckard a replicant? The question I have is what version of the movie this will be a sequel of?

 

[publiusr]

All I know is, when I saw the theatrical version -- where the narration at the end reinforced the idea that Batty was the villain and had had a meaningless and inexplicable moment of humanity -- I didn't like the movie at all.

Also remember that this film came hard on the heels of ALIEN, with Ian Holm's Ash still in peoples minds--that and THE HITCHER.

As far as ash is concerned--there is white artificial blood
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-11/better-blood

I think there is a more reddish version as well.

The narration never mattered one way or another. No one is blameless in Noir.

 

[Christopher]

Also remember that this film came hard on the heels of ALIEN, with Ian Holm's Ash still in peoples minds--that and THE HITCHER.

Not for me. I didn't see it until years later on TV. And I never saw The Hitcher.

The narration never mattered one way or another.

Speak for yourself. For me, the narration made the difference between disliking the movie and liking it. Not just because it distorted the meaning of the film, but because it was just so terrible and badly delivered.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don't see how anybody could see the film as morally straightforward. The way Deckard killed the two female replicants was very short of heroic. They weren't trying to kill anyone, they were just trying to hide and survive.

 

[Christopher]

I don't see how anybody could see the film as morally straightforward. The way Deckard killed the two female replicants was very short of heroic. They weren't trying to kill anyone, they were just trying to hide and survive.

I don't recall anyone saying the film was "morally straightforward." That's certainly not what I meant to convey. Of course Deckard was wrong to kill the replicants -- that's the whole point. As I've said, the movie's themes and character motivations didn't make sense to me until I realized that it was about Deckard's journey to the realization that he'd been on the wrong side all along.

 

[Deckerd]

Deckard had quit at the start so he's already made that realisation before the film starts. Everything else is just a confirmation of that.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

I don't recall anyone saying the film was "morally straightforward." That's certainly not what I meant to convey. Of course Deckard was wrong to kill the replicants -- that's the whole point. As I've said, the movie's themes and character motivations didn't make sense to me until I realized that it was about Deckard's journey to the realization that he'd been on the wrong side all along.

I was talking about the narration, trying to suggest the film is morally straightforward and the replicants are just evil and need to be killed. It's like whoever added that didn't even watch the rest of the film.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I was talking about the narration, trying to suggest the film is morally straightforward and the replicants are just evil and need to be killed. It's like whoever added that didn't even watch the rest of the film.

The narration wasn't "added." It was always intended to be there. Blade Runner was meant to be a 1940s film noir pastiche, albeit one set in the future.

 

[publiusr]

The closest thing to a real villain in the movie was Deckard's boss.
Deckard and Batty are just more broken cogs in the machine that is the city. We pity them both--Roy moreso.

That having been said--had I seen Deckard chasing Zhora through the street, about to shoot her in the back--I might have attacked him.

Or so I tell myself.

Then too--had I been part of that dismal place--submerged inside Syd Mead's soul-eater--I might be too beaten down to do anything.

 

[Tosk]

The narration wasn't "added." It was always intended to be there. Blade Runner was meant to be a 1940s film noir pastiche, albeit one set in the future.

It was added. The narration heard in the theatrical cut was written well after filming was finished, by a writer who did not work previously on the production. The final V.O. version was an attempt to pull together the loose strands of what was believed at the time to be a film that didn't work.

 

[Deckerd]

I liked it with the narration and I liked it without. It wasn't significant.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

It was added. The narration heard in the theatrical cut was written well after filming was finished, by a writer who did not work previously on the production. The final V.O. version was an attempt to pull together the loose strands of what was believed at the time to be a film that didn't work.

I think we're talking past one another. The voice-over was always intended to be part of the film; there are versions of it in the script from the beginning. The final version of the narration, written, I believe, by Roland Kibbee, may not be what Fancher or Peoples wrote, but it's consistent with their vision.

 

[JirinPanthosa]

The narration wasn't "added." It was always intended to be there. Blade Runner was meant to be a 1940s film noir pastiche, albeit one set in the future.

It's an interesting commentary on the film audience that it's so easy to see Batty as just a villain who had a moment of weakness. That interpretation is not consistent with an unbiased viewing.

If the film had been shot from the perspective of the replicants instead of Deckard, then it's a story of a cruel government hunting down escaped slaves like animals. The narration implies that we shouldn't take a broader perspective, we need to watch the film good and biased. Accept the cinematic manipulation and the establishment line.