ElbowRocket
Member
In the year 2018 they didn't even have smart phones..but they had flying cars..
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Blade Runner: 30 Years Later
- Thread starter PhoncipleBone
- Start date
- Status
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
WHAT? (And I can't believe you agreed with this, Fatboy). Yikes. Authorial intent and the motivations of the artist are almost always the driving force when it comes to the critique of art. No, it doesn't have to define or overrule how a work affects you or what it meant to you outside of the knowledge of the author. But to say that authorial intent isn't considered 'overly relevant' is absolutely crazy to me.
It is one of the reasons that Scott's stamping/shoehorning his own interpretations onto PDK's story is so vexing to some.
awesome. thanks for sharing!
Beermeister
Banned
My favorite movie of all time.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.
You do not have a relationship as an audience with the artist, you have a relationship with their art. Critique stems from your own interpretation and reaction to the work, not the interpretation and reaction the artist wanted you to have. One of the basic tenants of literary theory is the separation of artist and art. "Because that's how the artist intended it" is not a valid argument for any interpretation on behalf of the scholar.
You can, of course, use authorial intent to inform and expand your own interpretation, but it plays such a small part. And it is oft true that authors are often the most ignorant about their own work. (Not, I feel, in the case of Blade Runner, but that is irrelevant)
If Scott spun around and suddenly declared that actually Deckard was human after all, he'd be wrong, as the film he made says the exact opposite. He might have intended for Deckard to be human, but that's irrelevant in terms of critiquing the film.
Example: the creators of LOST released that book after the show ended that attempted to explain a lot of things. It failed as many of the explanations directly contradicted what was presented in the show. There own artistic intentions should not be considered canonical in the slightest when it flies in the face of what they actually made.
Another example: HitlerTeapot-gate
He isn't stamping or shoehorning anything, especially not his own interpretation. He found a fascinating germ of an idea in PKD's story and from that developed his own in collaboration with Peoples and Fancher. Blade Runner wasn't an adaptation.
Fair point. Vehemently wasn't the best word choice.Well if you're gonna VEHEMENTLY disagree, I'd hope the twist works more than "just fine" for youI mean, if it was a legitimate mindblower to you, that's one thing. But if it's just "eh - it's fine" then I don't think it's warranted. A twist shouldn't reside in the same space it takes to shrug and give a single nod. A twist should make you lean back or widen your eyes.
But I guess I simply enjoy twists even when they're presented like this one. I have no problem with one that is just a simple nod at the end like that. I thought it was genuinely interesting, and I enjoyed that the ending is still somewhat ambiguous and that you're still left with questions once those elevator doors close. Whether or not they get away safely, whether or not Gaff will go after them, etc. I honestly love everything about the director's/final cut ending.
But maybe I'm in the minority here. I didn't know the idea of Deckard being a replicant was disliked by some.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I do agree with you in that I also prefer that the film end when the elevator doors shut.
I don't think you're necessarily in the minority for liking Ridley's inclusion of the Unicorn scene, and thus, making it blatant that Deckard IS a replicant. But there are quite a few fans of the film who dislike the idea of Deckard being an android. Pretty much everyone who MADE the movie aside from Scott dislikes that notion, too.
I do agree with you in that I also prefer that the film end when the elevator doors shut.
I don't think you're necessarily in the minority for liking Ridley's inclusion of the Unicorn scene, and thus, making it blatant that Deckard IS a replicant. But there are quite a few fans of the film who dislike the idea of Deckard being an android. Pretty much everyone who MADE the movie aside from Scott dislikes that notion, too.
Can you link a source for this? You are saying it again and again, but I haven't seen that you've actually backed the claim up.
Not saying that I doubt you, it's just kinda annoying too see something like this used constantly as an argument by someone without ever showing the actual source.
Nappuccino
Member
Harrison Ford and the original screen writer for two.
But, it's much more interesting to wonder about if he is. Not knowing if you are human or replicate is more interesting than "Oh hey, guess what, you're one too."
My wording was probably off. I prefer it that way too. But I don't see how the dream takes away all the ambiguity. I think there is still room for interpretation.
Soyongdori
Member
It would've made a lof sense if they explained some of the stuffs he was talking about. I mean, WTF is Shoulder of Orion? WTF is Tannhauser gate?My favorite movie of all time.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
Apologies - I basically took it for granted people had either watched the Dangerous Days documentary, or read "Future Noir" by Paul Sammon (who does the commentary on the workprint) and that's my bad.
Anyway, yeah: Future Noir has an entire chapter dedicated to that sequence being put in the film, and the commentaries on the Final Cut feature producers/writers STILL scratching their heads over what he was thinking, and I believe it's addressed again in the Dangerous Days documentary itself.
What, NO! That's the magic of that moment. After all it's stuff he's seen us people wouldn't believe.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
Hell no. Not knowing about the events or places he is describing makes them seem that much more magical and amazing. It is one of those things I love in good sci-fi movies, where they only reference events or places and it gets your mind wondering what it is really like. It is world building without actually building anything. Difficult to explain.
My favorite movie of all time.
I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate. All those moments will be lost in time... like tears in rain... Time to die.
I saw the movie for the first time last year and thought that was the only standout moment. A stunning one, but the only one nonetheless.
There really isn't. The dream is the one solid, non-ambiguous clue. The glowing eyes (and never mind the fact you don't notice it as a first time viewer as Deckard is the focus of the frame) are visual cues to the audience, not in-universe phenomenons. You'll notice none of the characters appear to be aware of the red eyes.
The dream is, 100%, Gaff revealing he knows Deckard's thought patterns. For him to know that, Deckard would have to have implanted memories or processes, which would require him to be a replicant.
But that's the beauty of the speech. Has he actually seen these things? What are C-beams? Do they really glitter? Has the impossible man lived an impossible life, or is he talking nonsense, either out of an inflated sense of importance or because of his circuits breaking down?
Storytelling and myth is an innately human thing, and that is what Batty is doing.
Nappuccino
Member
Yeah- the eyes could be explained by metaphor for deckard being "like a replicant" though he is not actually one. That would be a valid (and honestly, my preferred) interpretation. But then you have this dream sequence that more or less eliminates any other interpretation.
It's space! I hear that stuff and I just think of pure, unadulterated sci-fi goodness.
Shoulder of Orion is I'm guessing a reference to the point on the Orion constellation.
Tannhauser gate is more vague, but I imagine it being some massive space port or something. Or like a processing area for ships entering Earth.
Slightly ambiguous references, but I think that's the point. Maybe this is just me being weird, but my mind was racing with sci-fi images and ideas the first time I finished Blade Runner and thought back to that speech. It's just trying to spark your imagination rather than be super specific.
Nappuccino
Member
Blade Runner is a movie that excels in repeat viewings.
Bobby Roberts
Banned
I know it took me two viewings to really get what it was about - first time through, I was trying to solve the "mystery" with Deckard, and was disappointed, as Deckard is kind of a shitty detective, and the "mystery" seemed tangential to the movie anyway. And of course, it is. On second viewing I decided to pay more attention to the characters, and just kinda let the movie play out - and THAT'S when the atmosphere of the thing really dug into my brain and took root.
The only other movie where that's happened to such a degree is Akira. I had to watch that thing like 3 times AND read the entirety of the Manga before I started to get a handle on what the fuck was happening in that movie
But a lot of people I know personally had Blade Runner kinda slide right off em on first viewing. It's the 2nd (and 3rd) viewings where the movie starts really hooking people. That's where the beauty of the movie (and the soundtrack) really pays dividends: Even people who don't really like the story or the characters are often willing to give it that second shot just because it's so pretty to look at.
The only other movie where that's happened to such a degree is Akira. I had to watch that thing like 3 times AND read the entirety of the Manga before I started to get a handle on what the fuck was happening in that movie
But a lot of people I know personally had Blade Runner kinda slide right off em on first viewing. It's the 2nd (and 3rd) viewings where the movie starts really hooking people. That's where the beauty of the movie (and the soundtrack) really pays dividends: Even people who don't really like the story or the characters are often willing to give it that second shot just because it's so pretty to look at.
I could watch Blade Runner every day forever and never get tired of it.
Plus it has my favourite opening to a movie ever
Plus it has my favourite opening to a movie ever
I almost fell asleep the first time I watched it, no joke. I was only like 15 and got bored. I got interested again once Roy and Batty start fighting and I liked the ending, but it wasn't until I saw it again on DVD that it became a personal classic. I find every moment of it fascinating at this point.
bideogamer
Neo Member
Haha, this is pretty much my exact story. Except I actually did fall asleep. Watched it again a few years later and was transfixed.
Instigator
Banned
Movie already was already over budget hence why most of the big special effects are in the beginning.
Seriously everything is perfect. The music oh god. I even love the tree logo at the beginning <3
While we're at it: One reference I never got was the eye mirroring the city in the opening. I know the eye is a mirror to the soul and has an important role throughout the film. But I don't get it's singnificance in the opening scene. I always thought it was Batty probably looking over the city while he arrives from outer space and his soul is a reflection of the Babylon humans created and lost control over. What do you guys make of it?
Yeah Blade Runner only gets better with every viewing. I like to come home late at night and put the Love Theme on: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9KAqhbIZ7o
Nappuccino
Member
More to the point, Rutger Hauer wrote those lines himself. It wasn't in the script.
I know it took me two viewings to really get what it was about - first time through, I was trying to solve the "mystery" with Deckard, and was disappointed, as Deckard is kind of a shitty detective, and the "mystery" seemed tangential to the movie anyway. And of course, it is. On second viewing I decided to pay more attention to the characters, and just kinda let the movie play out - and THAT'S when the atmosphere of the thing really dug into my brain and took root.
The only other movie where that's happened to such a degree is Akira. I had to watch that thing like 3 times AND read the entirety of the Manga before I started to get a handle on what the fuck was happening in that movie
But a lot of people I know personally had Blade Runner kinda slide right off em on first viewing. It's the 2nd (and 3rd) viewings where the movie starts really hooking people. That's where the beauty of the movie (and the soundtrack) really pays dividends: Even people who don't really like the story or the characters are often willing to give it that second shot just because it's so pretty to look at.
This is all true, though it hooked me from the first.
I've watched the Final Cut maybe fifty times now. I'm still picking up new details with every viewing.
Almost half asleep is the best way to watch the film. You emerge from it past midnight like from a hazy dream, understanding your mind briefly grasped at something you can't quite remember, something more than should be possible, something elusive and beautiful.
And you'll watch it again and again, chasing that elusive feeling, each time knowing you in those moments understood something, but never quite remembering what that was when it's over.
It's a film that elevates the mind to uncharted dimensions that it can't quite comprehend.
Nobody, not Rutger, not Peoples, not Fancher, not Scott, can agree with each other how much Rutger did or did not add. The same people say completely different things depending on what day of the week you ask them. All we know is that Rutger invented some of it, likely including the "tears in the rain" line, but we'll never know for sure.
According to Dangerous Days it was up till Tannhäuser Gate. He added the last part though.
The cycle of confusion continues!
But seriously, one of these days we're just going to have to pick a single quote and sstick with it as a canonical answer.
I mean,they also can't agree if it was an improvisation or not, and when/where it was improvised if it was.
"It was at the first script reading."
"Rutger approached me with some additions he wanted to make to the scene five minutes before we shot it."
"We just started shooting and when he started speaking he didn't stop."
"They were all lines from the very first draft of the script before I got fired. Rutger just put them back in."
- Status