I like the ending that leaves everything more or less up in the air. The original ending isn't terrible by any means. I can enjoy it just fine, but the "Final Cut" ending struck me as much more satisfying when I finally got around to seeing it.
Blade Runner.....SPOILERS
- Thread starter the_wildcard
- Start date
I have mixed feelings about the "happy ending", which is a misnomer, since there's nothing happy about it at all. But, it IS an extended secene, and extended scenes in a movie are always a good thing. That said, I agree though that it does not fit with the rest of the movie.
The voiceover, however, is where I disagree with the popular opinion. I have all five versions of Blade Runner, and recently watched all of them (it'll be years before I watch one of them again), and I have to say that the movie is dead without it. Bad reading or not, doesn't matter.
The voiceover, however, is where I disagree with the popular opinion. I have all five versions of Blade Runner, and recently watched all of them (it'll be years before I watch one of them again), and I have to say that the movie is dead without it. Bad reading or not, doesn't matter.
That was my take on it.
I strongly prefer the director's cut and the ambiguity of the ending - what will happen to Rachel and Deckard next? Is he really a replicant at all? I don't need everything served up on a silver platter.
Sooo, just to jazz up the discussion, why is there no talk of a prequel/sequel/remake/reimagining of this movie? Is something sacred in Hollywood after all?
I would like to think that, but I suspect the reason we've never seen anything else directly related is the legal mess this film is infamous for.
I'm so glad I invested in the 5 disc set. I always thought I'd miss the continual voiceover, but I didn't. I really prefer Ridley Scott's final cut over all of them.
As for the added, "happy" ending in the original theatrical release - I never really liked it. It's just sooo different from the tone and feeling of the rest of the film that I never really bought it. I do like the little bit of mystery in the final cut's ending.
As for the added, "happy" ending in the original theatrical release - I never really liked it. It's just sooo different from the tone and feeling of the rest of the film that I never really bought it. I do like the little bit of mystery in the final cut's ending.
Sooo, just to jazz up the discussion, why is there no talk of a prequel/sequel/remake/reimagining of this movie? Is something sacred in Hollywood after all?
There was a very slight tremor about a year ago:
http://www.slashfilm.com/2008/09/29/exclusive-eagle-eye-co-writers-working-on-blade-runner-2/
Sooo, just to jazz up the discussion, why is there no talk of a prequel/sequel/remake/reimagining of this movie? Is something sacred in Hollywood after all?
Well, there was Total Recall 2070, the TV series that used elements from Total Recall (officially) and Blade Runner (unofficially). It started off badly, but for a show that had only one season, it improved a hell of a lot in the time it had. If it had had more time and more money it might be more widely seen as a worthy thematic successor to Blade Runner.
And there are the novels by K.W. Jeter, which try to reconcile Blade Runner with the original novel as much as possible. They're interesting, especially if you're a PKD fan, but I think the books suffer storywise from the attempt to mesh two incompatible visions.
But it wouldn't surprise me if Kirkman1987 is right about legal problems being the reason there's no official remake or sequel movie. Considering some of the crap Hollywood remakes, it is kind of surprising that it hasn't happened yet.
I never really got that part. Does it mean Gaffe knows about Deckards dreams because they're made up?
Seems pretty vague to me.
I always get the impression that Gaffe and Deckard knew each other from way back. For all we know, Deckard might have just told him about his dream at some point and the origami was just Gaffe's way of telling Deckard, that the thought of escaping and living with Rachel is just like the unicorn - a dream.
Hell, maybe Deckard dreamed of the unicorn because Gaffe was making those damn unicorn origamis all the time.
The whole idea that Deckard is a replicant stems from the notion that he is part of the six, hence nexus six, that escaped off world and attempted to come back. The idea here is that he is the sleeper in the cell that serves to put them down if they attempt to revolt. The problem with that is that all of Rick's memories of being a cop and knowing Holden, Bryant, or Gaffe are implants. What the crap happens if any of these people are killed in the four years that the Deckard replicant is in service? This seems like an extemely poor system of control. Why would they let a replicant run around with that hand bazooka? It seems to me there is a slight chance that "if" Deckard decides not to kill off his cell, he now presents a huge threat to the public at large. Now, you also have the scene that was filmed and exists on the recent DVD release that shows Rick talking to Holden in a hospital setting. Holden is ranting about how dangerous the new "skin jobs are". He clearly knows Deckard and Deckard knows him. It's not a memory implant. Deckard is human.
Erm no
It had Viggo Mortenson and William H. Macy and a theatrical release though, but it was basically almost a shot for shot remake apparently.I have not watched it, but it is not well thought of.
Which reminds me... anyone else picking up the current Boom! Comics version of the novel? First two issues are out. It's in comic form, but every word from the book is in there, a lot of it as captions.
Well, they both touch on the same subjects and the replicants are closer to the humaniod Cylons then any other artificial lifeform in SciFi, so I can definitely see where he's coming from.
And there is also a difference between the importance of a theme and historical importance as determined by the impact it has on culture and genre over the years.
I think EJO was going for the former here.
We can't make a judgement about the latter, since BSG is simply not as old as Blade Runner yet. Give it 20 more years time to age and find its place, then we can talk again.
So,Harrison Ford was not too happy with the so-called "happy ending"but did anyone ever ask his opinion on the Deckard is a replicant theory?
I remember seeing an interview with M.Emmet Walsh,who when asked his opinion said that if Deckard was a replicant,then that would basically render the movie pointless.
Man against machine=a story.
Machine against machine...so what?
I remember seeing an interview with M.Emmet Walsh,who when asked his opinion said that if Deckard was a replicant,then that would basically render the movie pointless.
Man against machine=a story.
Machine against machine...so what?
Similar threads
