• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Blade Runner 2

jaime said:
who is gaff?
Click to expand...
Cop.
jaime said:
Why is he there?
Click to expand...
To take Deckard to Bryant.
jaime said:
Why can Deckard say things like 'i was quit when I came in here...etc' to someone who appears to be his boss? (There's no implication Deckard is anything but an employee
Click to expand...
There's all sorts of implication. His attitude informs us of their relationship and Deckard's current status. Bryant had Deckard "arrested" because he knew he wouldn't show up if he just asked.

jaime said:
Seriously...try and look at the later cuts with none of the detail you only know cos of the earlier cut.
Click to expand...
You could also look at the Director's or Final Cut without thinking the voice over is necessary for details that are either there in the existing material or completely immaterial.
 
Replacing the actress depicting Zhora in the Esper photo enhancement scene does not make Deckard more of a detective. He was always a detective shown detecting. He was also a predator predating. Whether it was clear or not, the idea was that he always recognized Zhora well enough.
 
Christopher said:
Studios often dislike ambiguous or challenging endings. Heck, the theatrical cut tacked on footage from a whole other movie (helicopter shots of a car driving through the hills from The Shining) to impose a happy ending that wasn't supposed to be there.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that you understand ambiguity as a concept, and might even enjoy it under artistic circumstances? Interesting.

TC
 
jaime said:
Hipster BR almost xD don't forget even the unicorn wasn't footage for BR, so worrying about a few aerial shots of some trees taken from a bajillion feet of Kubrick outtakes seems disingenuous.
Click to expand...

The unicorn footage was shot for Blade Runner, not any other movie.
 
Harvey said:
The unicorn footage was shot for Blade Runner, not any other movie.
Click to expand...

theres a bit of controversy as to whether that's the case.
It certainly doesn't actually support the Deckarep theory anyway. Symbolistically, both unicorns are Rachael. And memory implants are not a daydream.
 
Tosk said:
Cop.
To take Deckard to Bryant.
There's all sorts of implication. His attitude informs us of their relationship and Deckard's current status. Bryant had Deckard "arrested" because he knew he wouldn't show up if he just asked.

You could also look at the Director's or Final Cut without thinking the voice over is necessary for details that are either there in the existing material or completely immaterial.
Click to expand...

I did. It's slightly poorer narratively. And has a terrible soundscape in places. Also..too blue.
 
jaime said:
theres a bit of controversy as to whether that's the case.
Click to expand...
Cite examples of why you don't think it's the case. I've never heard anything apart from fan conjecture that says it was filmed for any other reason. Legend was still three years away at that point, and the happy ending was shot after the unicorn.

jaime said:
It's slightly poorer narratively.
Click to expand...
Specifically?

jaime said:
Radically changed, and the key line added.
Click to expand...
Peoples' wrote of c-beams and ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I wouldn't call the ifnal scene radically changed. Even if the last line added by Hauer is a helluva kicker.
 
I'm excited -- Paul Sammon's Future Noir is being reissued in September, updated to cover The Final Cut. It's also supposed to have a new interview with Rutger Hauer, a 2007 Harrison Ford interview, and a chapter on Blade Runner 2049. I wonder if he'll also cover the K.W. Jeter novels and BOOM!'s DADOES? comic books. I've treasured the original 1996 (or was it 1995?) edition, and i'll be nice to have a book that brings the Blade Runner story up to date. That's the book to have if you've ever wanted to know everything there is to know about the making of Blade Runner.
 
Damn, another re-issue? That makes four copies I'll have bought so far. Oh well. :)
 
Tosk said:
Damn, another re-issue? That makes four copies I'll have bought so far. Oh well. :)
Click to expand...

My original copy has held up, so I've never had to rebuy Future Noir. Well, until September, that is; I need the new edition.

Ian McDonald's Revolution in the Head, his cultural survey of the Beatles, though, I've had to rebuy several times in the last twenty years, either as new editions have come out (there have been three) or I've worn out a copy. :)
 
Allyn Gibson said:
My original copy has held up, so I've never had to rebuy Future Noir. Well, until September, that is; I need the new edition.
Click to expand...
All my copies are in good condition, but I have the hardcover, paperback, and the re-issue they did when The Final Cut came out. :)
 
Allyn Gibson said:
My original copy has held up, so I've never had to rebuy Future Noir. Well, until September, that is; I need the new edition.

Ian McDonald's Revolution in the Head, his cultural survey of the Beatles, though, I've had to rebuy several times in the last twenty years, either as new editions have come out (there have been three) or I've worn out a copy. :)
Click to expand...

Is there much difference between the ieditions? Mine was an American import of the paperback first Ed.
 
jaime said:
Even so..no unicorn footage actually shot for BR is still extant I thought?
Click to expand...

The footage used in the so-called director's cut was an outtake from the Blade Runner shoot. When they assembled the final cut, they found the original footage that Ridley Scott wanted to use (also shot for Blade Runner), and substituted that shot instead.

Every version of the unicorn scene that's appeared in various versions of the movie was, in fact, shot for Blade Runner.
 
jaime said:
Is there much difference between the ieditions? Mine was an American import of the paperback first Ed.
Click to expand...

Of Revolution in the Head? The second edition added some material on Live at the BBC (IIRC), the third edition adds material on the Anthology project. Some of the new material isn't integrated well; the new text may outright contradict something that MacDonald said earlier and left alone. If you have the first edition, I think the third edition is worth having, just for his views on the material released in the 90s. (Spoiler: he wasn't enthused by the reunion singles.)

A good comparison book is Tim Riley's Tell Me Why, which covers similar territory but from an American perspective. The latest edition of that carries up through the Anthologies. I like Riley's work; his biography of Lennon is, in my view, the definitive word on the subject and blows previous biographies (including Philip Norman's semi-authorized biography) out of the water.
 
Allyn Gibson said:
Of Revolution in the Head? The second edition added some material on Live at the BBC (IIRC), the third edition adds material on the Anthology project. Some of the new material isn't integrated well; the new text may outright contradict something that MacDonald said earlier and left alone. If you have the first edition, I think the third edition is worth having, just for his views on the material released in the 90s. (Spoiler: he wasn't enthused by the reunion singles.)

A good comparison book is Tim Riley's Tell Me Why, which covers similar territory but from an American perspective. The latest edition of that carries up through the Anthologies. I like Riley's work; his biography of Lennon is, in my view, the definitive word on the subject and blows previous biographies (including Philip Norman's semi-authorized biography) out of the water.
Click to expand...

The oddest bio I read was 'the love you make' but I leant that one to a teacher and never saw it again. There's still an eightie hunter davies somewhere here though.

Also..crossed wires, I thought we were talking about future noir. XD
 
Harvey said:
The footage used in the so-called director's cut was an outtake from the Blade Runner shoot. When they assembled the final cut, they found the original footage that Ridley Scott wanted to use (also shot for Blade Runner), and substituted that shot instead.

Every version of the unicorn scene that's appeared in various versions of the movie was, in fact, shot for Blade Runner.
Click to expand...

That's odd. I thought they said in the docs that film was too rotted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top