Great Films I Don't Get - Bladerunner

[Neon Knight]

In a (probably) misguided attempt to become culturally enlightened, I've been viewing many classic films (well, they're classic in my culture. In my defense, I did watch Goodbye Lenin, Run Lola Run, and Das Boot, so I'm not completely Amero-centric. That's a word, right?) that came out decades ago and that most people have already seen.

So then I watch Bladerunner, a science fiction classic and considered one of the best films ever. And I can't figure out why.

Seriously, it just isn't clicking with me. The Sci-Fi Film Noir feel was a bit interesting, but Sci-Fi tends to get thrown with another genre all the time. I mean, how many times has Firefly been compared to Westerns? Sci-Fi is more of a setting than a genre anyway. I dunno. It wasn't bad it was just... not compelling. Not particularly engaging.

Can someone tell me what all the hubbub over this film is about?

[Piedmon_Sama]

You have to understand that a lot of the backdrop stuff in this film--the dystopian setting, the noir plotline, the urban decay and rampant corporatism--were all new ideas when this movie came out. I think Neuromancer had only been published a few years before Bladerunner came out, so that along with this film and some other sci-fi stuff from that period (like Robocop, Akira, Ghost in the Shell) had a major influence on what peoples' notions of "Cyberpunk" is.

But what didn't you find compelling about it? I personally enjoyed the film a lot, although the novelty will be somewhat lost if you're familiar with more recent dystopian sci-fi stories.

[TigerHunter]

I agree with the OP. I really had no idea what was going on for most of the film. There is such a thing as too little exposition.

[Terraoblivion]

I am pretty sure that Neuromancer was actually written before Bladerunner was released, but didn't hit the street until after to the great annoyance of the writer. Remember that Bladerunner was released back in 1982, while cyberpunk didn't really get going until the mid-80s.

[Semidi]

(I think(I could very well be wrong)) Bladerunner came out while Gibson was still writing Neuromancer. There's a story about Gibson having to walk out of Blade Runner because he felt someone had perfectly portrayed his vision (though that may be a myth). Blade Runner came out in '82, Neuromancer in '84.

Anyway, Blade Runner is, in my opinion, one of those films you need to repeatedly watch and study to fully "get". And be sure to watch the Final Cut as it's far superior to the original film. However, the Final Cut is even less accessible than the theatrical cut (if such a thing is possible).

[Mx.Silver]

(I think(I could very well be wrong)) Bladerunner came out while Gibson was still writing Neuromancer. There's a story about Gibson having to walk out of Blade Runner because he felt someone had perfectly portrayed his vision (though that may be a myth). Blade Runner came out in '82, Neuromancer in '84.

Anyway, Blade Runner is, in my opinion, one of those films you need to repeatedly watch and study to fully "get". And be sure to watch the Final Cut as it's far superior to the original film. However, the Final Cut is even less accessible than the theatrical cut (if such a thing is possible).

This. It's not uncommon for cyberpunk to take a rather complex, obscure approach (see also: Ghost in the Shell) so if you aren't used to this it may take a few watches to 'get'. I strongly recomend you take the time to do so however, it's well worth the effort to be able to appreciate it properly, as once you start to get past the 'what is this?' phase you'll find a very good film.

[Piedmon_Sama]

(I think(I could very well be wrong)) Bladerunner came out while Gibson was still writing Neuromancer. There's a story about Gibson having to walk out of Blade Runner because he felt someone had perfectly portrayed his vision (though that may be a myth). Blade Runner came out in '82, Neuromancer in '84.

Anyway, Blade Runner is, in my opinion, one of those films you need to repeatedly watch and study to fully "get". And be sure to watch the Final Cut as it's far superior to the original film. However, the Final Cut is even less accessible than the theatrical cut (if such a thing is possible).

Oh, my bad. For some reason I thought Bladerunner was late 80's... so yeah, it's even more of a trendsetter than I gave it credit for.

[Foeofthelance]

Admittedly it helps if you read Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep? first, but basically it comes down to two questions:

1) What happens next?
2) Is he an android as well? (Though this is handled more in the book than the movie)

[Weezer]

Read the book and then rewatch the movie, the book Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep, shows what the movie was trying to capture but failed to.

[Philistine]

Another reason (and IMO the main one) why Blade Runner gets beaten with the "classic" stick is its theme - the movie isn't about Deckard trying to retire Ray Batty et al, the movie is about the question, "What is it that makes us human?" Thus it stands in stark contrast to the Action-F/X extravaganzas that Hollywood usually tries to pass off as science fiction.

Unfortunately, the movie does sacrifice clarity; combined with the slow pace, it tends to leave people bored and confused on first viewing. On the upside, it's one of the few movies that actually gets better on the second and subsequent viewings, once you stop expecting it to be something it's not.

[valadil]

I wasn't a fan either, but what I did appreciate was the setting. Every little detail was covered just right.

[Oregano]

You have to understand that a lot of the backdrop stuff in this film--the dystopian setting, the noir plotline, the urban decay and rampant corporatism-

I'm sure they were themes in Sci-fi before Blade Runner(with the exception of the noir plotline), didn't Metropolis have those themes?

I can't remember Blade Runner.:smallfrown: I watched it when I was young, but I have the VHS so I shall have to watch it.

[Corvus]

Best. Movie. Evah.

Okay, i get that some people don't get it. It is far more philosophical that your average Sci Fi movie and is set in a rather dark and dysfunctional world, so much so that they were forced to put in a 'happy ending' for the original theatrical release. Lucky that has been axed for the Final Cut release.

Roy Batty's death scene is one of the most amazing bits of movie making ever, and it is even more special when you know that that wasn't what was first written, and Rutger Huaer himself came up with the lines.

[Irenaeus]

It's a beautifully directed movie, which combined with the visuals and music does a lot to create a very strong atmosphere, and suggest a much greater depth to the world presented.

For me, all the analysis is less important than those elements, even though I appreciate all of those as well. If that didn't strike you on the first viewing, it might not just be your kind of movie, and a second viewing might or might not change that.

Firefly really can't compare, no matter how much I like it. They shouldn't be compared either, as they have very little in common.

[Athaniar]

Goodbye Lenin

I remember having to watch that one in school. It was said to be a comedy. It wasn't.

[Neon Knight]

But what didn't you find compelling about it? I personally enjoyed the film a lot, although the novelty will be somewhat lost if you're familiar with more recent dystopian sci-fi stories.

I admit that my age might affect my perception of things. These films were released years and decades before I was born; I probably viewed works influenced and paying homage to classics I had never seen. I heard “Say hello to my little friend” long before I ever watched Scarface. I still found Scarface to be a compelling piece of film, though.

I guess my main problem is I can’t figure out “What are we trying to say here? What do we say here, whether we meant to or not? Why does it say this or that?”

The replicants as a whole are a bit troublesome, because of their ambiguity. There is no doubt that they are victims, but at the same time they are undeniable dangerous. They’re super powerful, have little experience dealing with and controlling their emotions, and a pre-disposition against society. They’re like fickle greek gods. They could very easily harm innocents, and their persecution is somewhat justified by the sheer danger level they present. The replicants do harm individuals in the film, but these men are somewhat culpable in their suffering.

The thing is, little is made of that ambiguity. The replicants aren’t entirely sympathetic, nor are they entirely unsympathetic, but nothing is made of that fact. They’re sort of just there.



Anyway, Blade Runner is, in my opinion, one of those films you need to repeatedly watch and study to fully "get". And be sure to watch the Final Cut as it's far superior to the original film. However, the Final Cut is even less accessible than the theatrical cut (if such a thing is possible).
Aren’t there like 7 versions of it? Which is the version that became famous?

This. It's not uncommon for cyberpunk to take a rather complex, obscure approach (see also: Ghost in the Shell) so if you aren't used to this it may take a few watches to 'get'. I strongly recomend you take the time to do so however, it's well worth the effort to be able to appreciate it properly, as once you start to get past the 'what is this?' phase you'll find a very good film.
I’m trying, trust me. But I do feel I am somewhat past the “What is this?” stage.


Admittedly it helps if you read Do Androids Dream of Electronic Sheep? first, but basically it comes down to two questions:

2) Is he an android as well? (Though this is handled more in the book than the movie)

Hey, I remember that bit. Isn’t it a throwaway line that Harrison Ford doesn’t even react to? Personally, I discarded the possibility almost immediately. If he was a replicant, wouldn’t he be a bit more badass? He behaved like a fairly normal human being in all the fights while all of the replicants displayed superhuman capabilities. Then again, Rachel didn’t display any abnormal traits either, but she was “special.” Does it really matter? I mean, suppose he is a replicant? What are the repercussions of it? Not much.

Another reason (and IMO the main one) why Blade Runner gets beaten with the "classic" stick is its theme - the movie isn't about Deckard trying to retire Ray Batty et al, the movie is about the question, "What is it that makes us human?" Thus it stands in stark contrast to the Action-F/X extravaganzas that Hollywood usually tries to pass off as science fiction.


It does? Seriously? How so?

I didn’t get that vibe at all. (In fact, I didn’t pick up any sort of tone, mood, or vibe to the film. It was just sort of there.) I appreciated the unconventional showdown with the final replicant (aside from the streaking and wolf howlish noises, which became a bit silly after the third or so repetition.)

Best. Movie. Evah.

Okay, i get that some people don't get it. It is far more philosophical that your average Sci Fi movie and is set in a rather dark and dysfunctional world, so much so that they were forced to put in a 'happy ending' for the original theatrical release. Lucky that has been axed for the Final Cut release.

Roy Batty's death scene is one of the most amazing bits of movie making ever, and it is even more special when you know that that wasn't what was first written, and Rutger Huaer himself came up with the lines.
It is? How so?

I mean, if this film was directed by Sartre I could perhaps see some philosophy to it. The whole Existence precedes Essence thing doesn’t quite apply to beings designed from birth to fulfill certain tasks, now does it?

I also have to question the dark and dysfunctional bit. It wasn’t paradise, sure, but it didn’t seem that bad. It didn’t seem that much more gritty than your typical noir film. It may be gritty for sci-fi of the time, but so what? Somewhat gritty sci-fi may be interesting, but it doesn’t make for the best movie ever.



Firefly really can't compare, no matter how much I like it. They shouldn't be compared either, as they have very little in common.

The only comparison was the fact that both combine Sci-Fi with some other element.


I remember having to watch that one in school. It was said to be a comedy. It wasn't.
Hey, it had some funny moments. And the rest of the film was still good.

[Mx.Silver]

The replicants as a whole are a bit troublesome, because of their ambiguity. There is no doubt that they are victims, but at the same time they are undeniable dangerous. They’re super powerful, have little experience dealing with and controlling their emotions, and a pre-disposition against society. They’re like fickle greek gods. They could very easily harm innocents, and their persecution is somewhat justified by the sheer danger level they present. The replicants do harm individuals in the film, but these men are somewhat culpable in their suffering.

The thing is, little is made of that ambiguity. The replicants aren’t entirely sympathetic, nor are they entirely unsympathetic, but nothing is made of that fact. They’re sort of just there.

Kind of like normal people, which I suspect was the whole point. Besides, how much can you make of their ambiguity? Society at large is preconditioned not to think of them as being in any way human (to be honest I'd argue some of their cruelty is fairly understandable, given what's happened to them). Also, most people who watch the film are aware of their ambiguity without having it drumbed up into a 'major issue'.


Hey, I remember that bit. Isn’t it a throwaway line that Harrison Ford doesn’t even react to? Personally, I discarded the possibility almost immediately. If he was a replicant, wouldn’t he be a bit more badass? He behaved like a fairly normal human being in all the fights while all of the replicants displayed superhuman capabilities. Then again, Rachel didn’t display any abnormal traits either, but she was “special.” Does it really matter? I mean, suppose he is a replicant? What are the repercussions of it? Not much.

On the 'badass' issue, bear in mind that the more superhuman replicants actually knew they were replicants, Rachel had no idea of her capabilities and behaved entirely normally. As to why it should be considered a real issue and not just a throwaway line I only have one word: unicorn.



I mean, if this film was directed by Sartre I could perhaps see some philosophy to it. The whole Existence precedes Essence thing doesn’t quite apply to beings designed from birth to fulfill certain tasks, now does it?
Not even if those beings are capable of thinking and feeling in exactly the same ways as we are? It's funny you picked on an issue the film itself touches upon as an example of why it isn't philosophical.

[Brewdude]

The fact that it came out in 1982 is a big deal.

The reason Star Wars was such a big deal was that it came out in 1977... If you want to see something comparative for the time, in terms of big budget action films, see "Bullet". There was literally nothing like it.

Then came Alien, Empire strikes back, and....

...and Blade runner.

The casual sci fi element of the flying car, the crappy downtown where animals are nearly extinct. The rampant asian influence (and use of currency) in Los Angeles downtown. These outward expressions of the punk side of cyberpunk hadn't really been explored in movies before.


The replicants as a whole are a bit troublesome, because of their ambiguity. There is no doubt that they are victims, but at the same time they are undeniable dangerous.

Are they victims? Are you victimizing your toaster? They were designed to be slaves, just like all our other machines.


They’re super powerful, have little experience dealing with and controlling their emotions, and a pre-disposition against society.

There's no predisposition against society. Their existence is illegal on earth. The fact that they are intelligent enough to turn on their owners could be seen as just a bit of lousy programming.


They’re like fickle greek gods. They could very easily harm innocents, and their persecution is somewhat justified by the sheer danger level they present. The replicants do harm individuals in the film, but these men are somewhat culpable in their suffering.

But can a toaster suffer? How about a computer? An advanced computer? an advanced computer in a robot body? An advanced computer in a constructed fleshy body? Where's the point of sentience such that these questions matter? Can anything constructed have a soul? The fact that they harm people, once again, can be construed basically as industrial accident. High voltage wiring is dangerous, but it does have it's uses. Should we stop using it because of it's danger? What about it's suffering?

[Irenaeus]

I admit that my age might affect my perception of things. These films were released years and decades before I was born;Decades? I feel old now.


I guess my main problem is I can’t figure out “What are we trying to say here? What do we say here, whether we meant to or not? Why does it say this or that?”

The replicants as a whole are a bit troublesome, because of their ambiguity. There is no doubt that they are victims, but at the same time they are undeniable dangerous. They’re super powerful, have little experience dealing with and controlling their emotions, and a pre-disposition against society. They’re like fickle greek gods. They could very easily harm innocents, and their persecution is somewhat justified by the sheer danger level they present. The replicants do harm individuals in the film, but these men are somewhat culpable in their suffering.

The thing is, little is made of that ambiguity. The replicants aren’t entirely sympathetic, nor are they entirely unsympathetic, but nothing is made of that fact. They’re sort of just there.I suspect we might just not have a combatible taste. You just describe exactly one of the elements I love. I love the ambiguity and open ending (of the director's cut, that is). I love how the replicants are both clearly dangerous, and not always entirely unsympathetic, and how Decard/the viewer never gets to know a good solution to the problem. Ham-fisted morals is a huge problem in movies both today, and past. A movie being open enough that you feel problems emerge, but are not solved is (or at least can be) a mark of quality.


The only comparison was the fact that both combine Sci-Fi with some other element.Fair enuff. That wasn't really my main point, though. The mood and feeling of depth created was.

Btw: You don't think eternal darkness due to pollution is somewhat dystopic at least? Just a little? :smallsmile:

[Mordar]

Another reason (and IMO the main one) why Blade Runner gets beaten with the "classic" stick is its theme - the movie isn't about Deckard trying to retire Ray Batty et al, the movie is about the question, "What is it that makes us human?" Thus it stands in stark contrast to the Action-F/X extravaganzas that Hollywood usually tries to pass off as science fiction.


It does? Seriously? How so?

I didn’t get that vibe at all. (In fact, I didn’t pick up any sort of tone, mood, or vibe to the film. It was just sort of there.) I appreciated the unconventional showdown with the final replicant (aside from the streaking and wolf howlish noises, which became a bit silly after the third or so repetition.)

This is, in fact, the driving message of the movie for me. Does the technological wonder of the future, the ability to simulate life, to create whatever is needed in a sterile fashion, lead to the extinguishing of the human soul? Does the desire for power and money rely upon the exploitation of technology...or of people? If "soulless" humans are driving civilization, can civilization create anything with a soul?

Huge numbers of people packed into cities, most living in squalor but all with access to strange and fantastic technologies. Only the priviledged few live with clean air and sunshine, and they have built their empires on the backs of technology and the underclass. Contrast the interior and exterior scenes of the offices where Deckard interviews Rachael to the scenes of the real city, the apartments and lofts. Sure, it's Noir, but for a reason...not because its "artsy" like Sin City or some Tarantino film.

Replicants, built to handle tasks humans don't want primarily because of risk of life - such as soldiers, miners or those that work in deep space. Simple robots might have been as effective, but there was another motive. Some were built to be toys for our amusement - sexbots, for lack of a better word - and all were intended to make those that work with replicants feel more comfortable among them. The replicants might well be considered as representations of citizens of 2nd/3rd world nations. They are viewed as replacable in every sense of the word, and even have enforced obsolescence. They needed to be somewhat autonomous, either to improve efficiency or to better simulate real people, so an impressive "AI" is required. They needed to be able to learn and adapt, but only to such a point that they become better workers. The expiration date is important because of the thought process behind it - keep the tool from realizing there is more to "life" than being a tool. If it knows its more than a tool it, through its "AI" might develop its own programming/desires - perhaps some alien mindset unique to robots - and rebel against the company or command structure, maybe even destroying all of mankind (see: Terminator).

In the end, though, the Replicants were more human, had more respect for life and friendship than many of the human characters. Deckard, our hero, recognizes this. JF Sebastian might as well, but he is presented as being off his rocker and perhaps a bigger part of the problem than even Tyrell.

I guess my final feeling of the film is this - the human soul will triumph in spite of technology, in spite of the soulless pursuit of power and it will flourish in places thought barren and devoid of hope. There are the more typical messages of "power corrupts", "little guys get the shaft" and "success breeds contempt" as well, but I think they serve at set dressing.

Now then...who wants to discuss Gaff and the origami?

*****

So, there's also another issue exposed here that I find frequently vexing, and I am sure that I have been guilty of the exact same issue in the past. It is very difficult for people to place films/books/art in the proper context when it is part of an established genre but was seminal in the development *of* that genre.

Blade Runner, for all the Gibson-philes out there decrying it, had at least as much to do with the development of cyberpunk as Neuromancer or any similar books. Despite its poor initial revenue, Blade Runner has been constantly named/listed on Best of Sci-Fi film lists, presented as a topic for sociology, film and humanities classes, set forth the trend for "Director's Cut" releases* and opened the door to American audiences for things like Akira, Terminator and the like.

That being said, people seeing it for the first time are frequently underwhelmed. So much has been done in the genre since then, so much has been changed in effects, film pacing and style, that it seems antiquated to many viewers. It's far too easy to dismiss the film because it is no longer 1982 and the trappings seem dated or trite. Too many bad films have come along that steal/borrow/referenece things from the movie/genre (Johnny Mnemonic, anyone?) that it actually cheapens the original. This is, I think, the greatest weakness of Blade Runner and any other quality film in the genre. It's established enough that people start to lose sight of the works that were the vanguard but young/niche/weak enough that a bad film can still cause ripples across the industry (and make production companies run to the easy success of action/sci-fi).

Those of us who saw Star Wars (no, not Episode 4, not A New Hope, just plain Star Wars) in the theaters back in 77 might be best able to see this. Today if a 7-, 12- or 20-year old were to see the original release they would be, at best, nonplussed, and far more likely to leave laughing at the "cheesey" movie than the shock and awe that viewers left with 31 year ago. Films can often be timeless...but their true value and impact is sometimes best viewed through the lens of society at the time of release.

Okay, that's probably a lot longer than most people wanted to read...

- Mordar

* - I sometimes wonder if directors intentionally film scenes that they are 100% certain will be cut from the theatrical release to include in their director's edition

[AKA_Bait]

Another reason (and IMO the main one) why Blade Runner gets beaten with the "classic" stick is its theme - the movie isn't about Deckard trying to retire Ray Batty et al, the movie is about the question, "What is it that makes us human?" Thus it stands in stark contrast to the Action-F/X extravaganzas that Hollywood usually tries to pass off as science fiction.


This. The Fifth Element (a decent and somewhat typical hollywood scifi flick) and Bladerunner, although technically both scifi, have as much in common in terms of the point of the movie as Citizen Kane and Ernest Saves Christmas.


They’re like fickle greek gods. They could very easily harm innocents, and their persecution is somewhat justified by the sheer danger level they present. The replicants do harm individuals in the film, but these men are somewhat culpable in their suffering.

Or very powerful children.


The thing is, little is made of that ambiguity. The replicants aren’t entirely sympathetic, nor are they entirely unsympathetic, but nothing is made of that fact. They’re sort of just there.

Just like real people eh?


Hey, I remember that bit. Isn’t it a throwaway line that Harrison Ford doesn’t even react to? Personally, I discarded the possibility almost immediately. If he was a replicant, wouldn’t he be a bit more badass? He behaved like a fairly normal human being in all the fights while all of the replicants displayed superhuman capabilities.

As above, consider that he doesn't know he was a replicant. Also, he is badass. No one else can go after replicants because they aren't good enough and the amount of punishment he takes is way too much for a "normal" human to withstand within that universe. Also, depending upon which cut you see, he has a memory of something impossible (the unicorn, meaning it was implated).


Then again, Rachel didn’t display any abnormal traits either, but she was “special.” Does it really matter? I mean, suppose he is a replicant? What are the repercussions of it? Not much.

Well, the reprocussions are about the rights of sentient beings.



It is? How so?

I mean, if this film was directed by Sartre I could perhaps see some philosophy to it. The whole Existence precedes Essence thing doesn’t quite apply to beings designed from birth to fulfill certain tasks, now does it?

If those created things are capable of free thought and emotion how does it not? Is it, in that case, in any way markedly different than breeding slaves intended to fulfill different tasks when they mature? If so, is it moral to create a being you know will be sentient with a built in shut-off date? Is that murder? The movie raises a lot of questions about the rights of consciousness and what consciousness means.

[Neo]

I agree that it is a great film and can't really add much more to the above, but thought i'd throw in 2 cents.

Another interesting thing about this that has been highlighted above is the split in sympathy about the replicants. You basically have the two points of view:

1.)they're advanced robots, but still robots. So not really people and therefore everything is ok.

2.)they're almost human, so should be given some kind of rights and stuff. Atleast then they might stay nice.

but you also have to remember that your basic human is also just a very advanced machine, just biological in nature rather than mechanical. ie your brain is your big damn CPU and your muscles are basically efficient hydraulic-like systems. All the same reason why today machine developers look for ideas in nature.

In my opinion the main themes above come from where you draw the line and if you're willing to accept the idea of machine evolution into something human.

[WychWeird]

The fact that it came out in 1982 is a big deal.

Don't forget that Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep was released in 1968, seriously predating Gibson.


But can a toaster suffer? How about a computer? An advanced computer? an advanced computer in a robot body? An advanced computer in a constructed fleshy body? Where's the point of sentience such that these questions matter? Can anything constructed have a soul? The fact that they harm people, once again, can be construed basically as industrial accident. High voltage wiring is dangerous, but it does have it's uses. Should we stop using it because of it's danger? What about it's suffering?

Isn't it slightly ironic that Edward James Olmos who is currently playing Adama in Battlestar Galactica and acted in Bladerunner - both shows essentially look at the questions raised in Brewdude's post.

[Tirian]

I think that there are some great movies that aren't much good, and Bladerunner is a great example. The reason you didn't get it is because it isn't told very well, and thank goodness that filmmakers have taken the time to get it and put its essence into every other cyberpunk dystopian movie.

It's like Doctor Strangelove. I watched it because it is the grandfather of movie comedies and inspired Monty Python, Saturday Night Live, Mel Brooks, yadda yadda yadda. Trust me, they watched it so you don't have to. I might have laughed twice, and one of those times was just to be polite.

[Ascension]

It's like Doctor Strangelove. I watched it because it is the grandfather of movie comedies and inspired Monty Python, Saturday Night Live, Mel Brooks, yadda yadda yadda. Trust me, they watched it so you don't have to. I might have laughed twice, and one of those times was just to be polite.

And I think Doctor Strangelove is hilarious. It depends on the viewer, I suppose.

I consider Blade Runner to be atmospheric but incomprehensible, and I think its fanbase sometimes comes off as a bit pretentious. I think there's a difference between a movie that doesn't make sense on the surface because it has a deeper, hidden meaning and a movie that doesn't make sense on the surface so people assume it has a deeper, hidden meaning. I personally think Blade Runner falls into the second category.

Now I'm not counting out the possibility that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is actually good, or that Blade Runner when viewed through the lenses of DADoES? is good, but I won't be able to test that until I can find a copy of DADoES?, which is proving harder than I expected.

[AKA_Bait]

I consider Blade Runner to be atmospheric but incomprehensible, and I think its fanbase sometimes comes off as a bit pretentious. I think there's a difference between a movie that doesn't make sense on the surface because it has a deeper, hidden meaning and a movie that doesn't make sense on the surface so people assume it has a deeper, hidden meaning. I personally think Blade Runner falls into the second category.

Obviously, we disagree. Although I do like the distinction. Donnie Darko falls into the second category for me.

[Philistine]

I agree that it is a great film and can't really add much more to the above, but thought i'd throw in 2 cents.

Another interesting thing about this that has been highlighted above is the split in sympathy about the replicants. You basically have the two points of view:

1.)they're advanced robots, but still robots. So not really people and therefore everything is ok.

2.)they're almost human, so should be given some kind of rights and stuff. Atleast then they might stay nice.

but you also have to remember that your basic human is also just a very advanced machine, just biological in nature rather than mechanical. ie your brain is your big damn CPU and your muscles are basically efficient hydraulic-like systems. All the same reason why today machine developers look for ideas in nature.

In my opinion the main themes above come from where you draw the line and if you're willing to accept the idea of machine evolution into something human.
There's actually a third point of view, which even more troublesome:

For all practical purposes, Replicants ARE human.

The only way to distinguish Replicants from "real" people is via the Voight-Kampff Test, which monitors subliminal cues that reflect the Replicant's lack of childhood socialization. And even this only works because the Replicants know they're Replicants - Rachel's purpose in the movie is to show that a Replicant unaware of its own artificial origin can even beat the Voight-Kampff, leaving the Blade Runners with NO way to distinguish between natural and artificial people. But if nobody can tell the difference, is Rachel human after all despite her origin? If not: Why not? And does it even matter?

So, yes, I definitely consider Blade Runner to fall into Ascension's first category. The meaning isn't conveyed as well as it might be, but it's there.


It's like Doctor Strangelove. I watched it because it is the grandfather of movie comedies and inspired Monty Python, Saturday Night Live, Mel Brooks, yadda yadda yadda. Trust me, they watched it so you don't have to. I might have laughed twice, and one of those times was just to be polite.

Possibly it's just not your type of humor. I really like Dr. Strangelove, even though I agree that there aren't a lot of laugh-out-loud moments in it. It's simply a different type of humor - it's dark, it's dry, it has more understatement and less exaggeration. It's not better or worse, just different. Take another example: in Full Metal Jacket, most people prefer the Boot Camp portion of the movie to the Vietnam portion. I on the other hand think the Vietnam portion is by far the funnier of the two*; but again it's not a matter of either one being right or wrong, it's just a different type of humor.



* It also includes the best line in movie history:
"How do you shoot women? And children?"
"Easy! You just don't lead 'em so much!"

[Ascension]

So, yes, I definitely consider Blade Runner to fall into Ascension's first category. The meaning isn't conveyed as well as it might be, but it's there.

For what it's worth, I have only seen it once, and It's been a while. I probably shouldn't have spoken with as much assurance as I did.

[Irenaeus]

I'm not really trying to convince you to like this, just trying to explain why I like it.
I consider Blade Runner to be atmospheric but incomprehensible, and I think its fanbase sometimes comes off as a bit pretentious.It/we does, certanly.


I think there's a difference between a movie that doesn't make sense on the surface because it has a deeper, hidden meaning and a movie that doesn't make sense on the surface so people assume it has a deeper, hidden meaning. I personally think Blade Runner falls into the second category.That's strange. I find the movie makes complete sense on the surface, although then the story is exceedingly simple. But it then opens for a lot of different valid interpretations. Ridley Scott has later said that Deckard is a replicant. I disagree. Both his interpretation and mine can be valid as everything but the stuff on the screen is irrelevant to the viewing experience.

In short, I disagree. There is no difference for me between an intended meaning and an unintended one, as long as both make sense to the viewer.


Now I'm not counting out the possibility that Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? is actually good, or that Blade Runner when viewed through the lenses of DADoES? is good, but I won't be able to test that until I can find a copy of DADoES?, which is proving harder than I expected.It is, but it is not that reminiscent of Blade Runner, I like the book for some attributes, and the movie for completely different attributes. For me, it is one of the prime examples of an adaptation becoming something completely different.

The whole "Decard may be a replicant"-thing, is the main theme of the book. In the movie, it is only barely existant. I am not a great fan of the interpretations going in that direction, nor do I find that element very intriguing in the movie, but I do think it is fascinating that we are able to appreciate the movie in such very different ways.

Making Deckard a replicant borrows to much from the book, in my opinion, meaning that we are not really discussing the film any more, but Blade Runner/DADoES theology. Read the book, you might like it much better. I don't, but there is really not a lot of consenus on this.

(Woha! A wall of text! I'm going to bed to sleep away the buzz. Before that I want to express my extreme disagreement with Tirian. Ehh... I disagree! Extremely.)

[SmartAlec]

The thing is, little is made of that ambiguity. The replicants aren’t entirely sympathetic, nor are they entirely unsympathetic, but nothing is made of that fact. They’re sort of just there.

They are a contrast to totally unsympathetic humans, though; Bryant, Gaff and the Blade Runners, who are essentially state-sanctioned murderers and don't seem to care, and seedier characters like Taffy Lewis.

I read - and had to agree with, to be honest - that the 'Deckard is a Replicant' revelation undermines the climax and the point of the film. Deckard, a hardened killer with almost no conscience left, is saved by Roy, who demonstrates that although he's not human, he has more humanity than most. The two of them make a good contrast, the human close to losing his soul and the artificial being that found one, and if Deckard is a Replicant that kind of takes the sting out of that comparison.

[Yulian]

Are they victims? Are you victimizing your toaster? They were designed to be slaves, just like all our other machines.

There's no predisposition against society. Their existence is illegal on earth. The fact that they are intelligent enough to turn on their owners could be seen as just a bit of lousy programming.

But can a toaster suffer? How about a computer? An advanced computer? an advanced computer in a robot body? An advanced computer in a constructed fleshy body? Where's the point of sentience such that these questions matter? Can anything constructed have a soul? The fact that they harm people, once again, can be construed basically as industrial accident. High voltage wiring is dangerous, but it does have it's uses. Should we stop using it because of it's danger? What about it's suffering?

I am amazed you can view it that way.

Listen to Batty's speech. He is sentient. There's no other way to take it. Have you read Brave New World? Is a Beta any less a person...is an Alpha less of one that John just because they were specially bred?

They harm people because they are terrified of death. They were created to have a limited lifespan, they can be murdered at will by a "real human". How would you feel if you were them?

A toaster doesn't ask "Who am I?" or "Do I have a soul?". The replicants did. Humans are "advanced computers", just ones made of meat instead of metal. I think I can actually state, definitively, that your opinion, based on what is revealed in the film, is actually wrong.

That's a rarity.

If a high-voltage wire could beg you to give it more life, more time, freedom...then you're darn right it would have a soul. Insomuch as any human does.

Honestly, this statement here:

"There's no predisposition against society. Their existence is illegal on earth. The fact that they are intelligent enough to turn on their owners could be seen as just a bit of lousy programming."

is rather chilling. You can easily apply that reasoning to slavery. It was illegal for slaves to be literate in the US for a while. It was certainly no "industrial accident" when they rebelled every so often. Created by humans directly or not, the replicants were in exactly the same position...worse in some ways.

That's a major point of the film. "What makes us human?". The film's answer doesn't seem to be "We were born biologically.", especially in light of the fact that none of the central characters may have been biological humans.

We may design machines as "slaves", but the day we design them to have hopes and fears and an ability to question their own existence, then they would be victims if we kept them enslaved.

Heck, The Animatrix owed a lot to this sort of thing in that one vignette about the robot uprising.

- Yulian

[Neon Knight]

Mr. Silver:

Kind of like normal people, which I suspect was the whole point. Besides, how much can you make of their ambiguity? Society at large is preconditioned not to think of them as being in any way human (to be honest I'd argue some of their cruelty is fairly understandable, given what's happened to them). Also, most people who watch the film are aware of their ambiguity without having it drumbed up into a 'major issue'.


Well, I'd argue that most normal people seem to be more ineffectual than ambiguous. They can't enact meaningful moral decisions that could be used to judge them as villainous and virtuous. Because of the mundane nature of their situations they are never called upon to undergo the kinds of moral stress or offered the kind of choices that could be used to determine their moral disposition.



On the 'badass' issue, bear in mind that the more superhuman replicants actually knew they were replicants, Rachel had no idea of her capabilities and behaved entirely normally. As to why it should be considered a real issue and not just a throwaway line I only have one word: unicorn.


I admit that if Gaff were to leave an origami calling card solely for the purpose of leaving one, a stereotypical crane would be much more suitable.




Not even if those beings are capable of thinking and feeling in exactly the same ways as we are? It's funny you picked on an issue the film itself touches upon as an example of why it isn't philosophical.

Alright, alright, touche.



Brewdude:




The casual sci fi element of the flying car, the crappy downtown where animals are nearly extinct. The rampant asian influence (and use of currency) in Los Angeles downtown. These outward expressions of the punk side of cyberpunk hadn't really been explored in movies before.



As much as I appreciate aesthetics, I don't think that being a landmark in aesthetic movements and trends necessarily warrants a movie being rated among the best ever.




Are they victims? Are you victimizing your toaster? They were designed to be slaves, just like all our other machines.



Since my toaster doesn't have any capability for emotion, thought, or suffering, I can't victimize. The replicants seem a tad different.




There's no predisposition against society. Their existence is illegal on earth. The fact that they are intelligent enough to turn on their owners could be seen as just a bit of lousy programming.



It seemed to me like the replicants had a bit of a chip on their shoulder.





But can a toaster suffer? How about a computer? An advanced computer? an advanced computer in a robot body? An advanced computer in a constructed fleshy body? Where's the point of sentience such that these questions matter? Can anything constructed have a soul? The fact that they harm people, once again, can be construed basically as industrial accident. High voltage wiring is dangerous, but it does have it's uses. Should we stop using it because of it's danger? What about it's suffering?

Like I said earlier, something incapable of feeling emotion cannot suffer. The replicants seem to more than a little bit different.



Irenaeus:




I suspect we might just not have a combatible taste. You just describe exactly one of the elements I love. I love the ambiguity and open ending (of the director's cut, that is). I love how the replicants are both clearly dangerous, and not always entirely unsympathetic, and how Decard/the viewer never gets to know a good solution to the problem. Ham-fisted morals is a huge problem in movies both today, and past. A movie being open enough that you feel problems emerge, but are not solved is (or at least can be) a mark of quality.



Well, whether a moral is "ham-fisted" or not is a subjective thing. Personally, I think it's easy to point out problems without suggesting answers to them. Isn't that how politics works in real life? :smallbiggrin: I keed, I keed.




Btw: You don't think eternal darkness due to pollution is somewhat dystopic at least? Just a little? :smallsmile:

Okay, maybe a little. But I think the average North Korean of the current day lives in a worse environment than the street types in Bladerunner. Ditto for a Darfur refugee. And Warhammer 40K is of course GRIMDARK to the point it almost become comical. My point is, I've seen worse, both in and out of fiction.


Mordar:


This is, in fact, the driving message of the movie for me. Does the technological wonder of the future, the ability to simulate life, to create whatever is needed in a sterile fashion, lead to the extinguishing of the human soul? Does the desire for power and money rely upon the exploitation of technology...or of people? If "soulless" humans are driving civilization, can civilization create anything with a soul?

Is that even a question? Human civilization seems to plenty soulful. Desire, exploitation, lust; seems to me like mankind hasn't changed a bit. I say this without cynicism. Human nature is comprised of everything man is and chooses to be.



Huge numbers of people packed into cities, most living in squalor but all with access to strange and fantastic technologies. Only the priviledged few live with clean air and sunshine, and they have built their empires on the backs of technology and the underclass. Contrast the interior and exterior scenes of the offices where Deckard interviews Rachael to the scenes of the real city, the apartments and lofts. Sure, it's Noir, but for a reason...not because its "artsy" like Sin City or some Tarantino film.


So class distinctions are still alive and well in the future. Couldn't a similar comparison be made between, say, the refugee camp Tony Montana has to live in while being processed and Frank's manor in Scarface? Wealthy people have nice things while poor people live in squalor. Karl Marx would like to say "That's what I've been telling you all along!"

Plus, why the diss on artsy? Properly executed, style has a substance all its own. See Equilibrium, The Boondock Saints, and Hero (Which also had regular substance) for what I consider to be exemplars of this.




In the end, though, the Replicants were more human, had more respect for life and friendship than many of the human characters. Deckard, our hero, recognizes this. JF Sebastian might as well, but he is presented as being off his rocker and perhaps a bigger part of the problem than even Tyrell.



The replicants were nicer, not more human. As above, I consider vice as well as virtue as necessary to being human. We are not human without our sins. I dislike the attitude that the negative parts of our existence are characterized as not being part of our nature. The use of the word "humane" as describing something positive is a pet peeve of mine. Also, had more respect for life? Leon and Roy's girlfriend were both actively trying to kill Deckard, and Roy himself was looking forward to ripping Deckard apart limb from limb up until the last seconds of his life. It's easy to repent on your death bed, but I don't think Roy would have saved Deckard if he had the rest of his life to look forward to.




I guess my final feeling of the film is this - the human soul will triumph in spite of technology, in spite of the soulless pursuit of power and it will flourish in places thought barren and devoid of hope. There are the more typical messages of "power corrupts", "little guys get the shaft" and "success breeds contempt" as well, but I think they serve at set dressing.



Once more, I problems with ambition being characterized as soulless. Mankind's darker impulses are just as human as his nobler ones.




Now then...who wants to discuss Gaff and the origami?



Where the bloody hell was Gaff for most of the film?

*****


So, there's also another issue exposed here that I find frequently vexing, and I am sure that I have been guilty of the exact same issue in the past. It is very difficult for people to place films/books/art in the proper context when it is part of an established genre but was seminal in the development *of* that genre.


Is cyberpunk really a genre? It seems to be more of an aesthetic or a setting to me. Perhaps a sub-genre at best.



That being said, people seeing it for the first time are frequently underwhelmed. So much has been done in the genre since then, so much has been changed in effects, film pacing and style, that it seems antiquated to many viewers. It's far too easy to dismiss the film because it is no longer 1982 and the trappings seem dated or trite. Too many bad films have come along that steal/borrow/referenece things from the movie/genre (Johnny Mnemonic, anyone?) that it actually cheapens the original. This is, I think, the greatest weakness of Blade Runner and any other quality film in the genre. It's established enough that people start to lose sight of the works that were the vanguard but young/niche/weak enough that a bad film can still cause ripples across the industry (and make production companies run to the easy success of action/sci-fi).

Those of us who saw Star Wars (no, not Episode 4, not A New Hope, just plain Star Wars) in the theaters back in 77 might be best able to see this. Today if a 7-, 12- or 20-year old were to see the original release they would be, at best, nonplussed, and far more likely to leave laughing at the "cheesey" movie than the shock and awe that viewers left with 31 year ago. Films can often be timeless...but their true value and impact is sometimes best viewed through the lens of society at the time of release.



And yet Dirty Harry wasn't cheesy to me at all. I found it compelling, which comprised me, since most references to it are lampoon and parody. Scarface also had an impressive majesty to it. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly was simply stellar. The Magnificent Seven was... well, magnificent. There is only one time I can remeber when I watched an old classic and laughed at it: Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. While what you describe may occur, I don't think it's happening to me here.


AKA_Bait:



Or very powerful children.


Or a mentally unstable individual with a lethal weapon.



Just like real people eh?


They may not be melodramatic caricatures, and neither are real people. But I'm not quite sure that real people are ambiguous. You could say that I am ambivalent on their ambiguity.



As above, consider that he doesn't know he was a replicant. Also, he is badass. No one else can go after replicants because they aren't good enough and the amount of punishment he takes is way too much for a "normal" human to withstand within that universe. Also, depending upon which cut you see, he has a memory of something impossible (the unicorn, meaning it was implated).


I don't quite follow you. Where was it stated that no other being could take down a replicant? doesn't he belong to an organization, the Blade Runners, dedicated to the elimination of replicants. And isn't memory painfully unreliable and hideously distortable? Isn't it possible for humans to have memories of impossible things? Some people recall being abducted by aliens, but to certain viewpoints that is impossible. They still might "remeber" these things quite vividly, as if they had happened, but they still might be impossible.



Well, the reprocussions are about the rights of sentient beings.


Once more, I don;t quite follow you. I was questioning the specific effects of Deckard being a replicant.



If those created things are capable of free thought and emotion how does it not? Is it, in that case, in any way markedly different than breeding slaves intended to fulfill different tasks when they mature? If so, is it moral to create a being you know will be sentient with a built in shut-off date? Is that murder? The movie raises a lot of questions about the rights of consciousness and what consciousness means.

It does? That doesn't seem to raise any questions. Either you hold that conscious, intelligent, and feeling beings have rights and deserve to be respected, or you don't. People in real life sell their fellow human beings for cigarettes and petty cash. I can't imagine a modern viewpoint that would grant rights and respect to humans but would deny it to the replicants in the film (they are, after all, portrayed by human actors.)



Tirian:


I think that there are some great movies that aren't much good, and Bladerunner is a great example. The reason you didn't get it is because it isn't told very well, and thank goodness that filmmakers have taken the time to get it and put its essence into every other cyberpunk dystopian movie.

It's like Doctor Strangelove. I watched it because it is the grandfather of movie comedies and inspired Monty Python, Saturday Night Live, Mel Brooks, yadda yadda yadda. Trust me, they watched it so you don't have to. I might have laughed twice, and one of those times was just to be polite.

I love Dr. Strangelove. I believe that I can appreciate it in ways the original audience couldn't. It's one of my favorite movies.


SmartAlec:



They are a contrast to totally unsympathetic humans, though; Bryant, Gaff and the Blade Runners, who are essentially state-sanctioned murderers and don't seem to care, and seedier characters like Taffy Lewis.


I didn't find them unsympathetic; the Bladerunners at least. They have as their job the hunting down and destruction of emotionally unstable, nothing to lose supermen. As ordinary men against incredible odds, they have my deepest sympathies.

And the fact that they don't care doesn't detract from that. On the contrary, their detachment makes them seem professional and competent.

The primary problem is that to me, the replicants are too dangerous to be let free. They have no attachments, theoretically no moral instruction, little control over themselves, superhuman capabilities, and no reason not to get their way through the liberal application of violence. Some of them even have combat experience.

The professions of the replicants-- sexual slavery, combat, dangerous industrial labor and other life threatening occupations --are not conductive to the formation of healthy or moral psyches. These are people who undergo experiences that in real life mess people up and mess them up good. With the ability to harm and kill a disproportionate amount of people, these kind of individuals cannot be put into society safely.

This is the same problem I had with Elfen Lied. If you have the ability to overcome and butcher entire platoons of human soldiery, and severe mental instability on top of it, I simply cannot deny that lethal action might be necessary. If I had the ability to generate a pair of Colt M1911 pistols at will no matter what state I was in, I would not expect to have the same rights as an ordinary human being because of the disproportionately greater threat I pose.



I read - and had to agree with, to be honest - that the 'Deckard is a Replicant' revelation undermines the climax and the point of the film. Deckard, a hardened killer with almost no conscience left, is saved by Roy, who demonstrates that although he's not human, he has more humanity than most. The two of them make a good contrast, the human close to losing his soul and the artificial being that found one, and if Deckard is a Replicant that kind of takes the sting out of that comparison.

Of course, not a few minutes earlier, he seemed to relish the prospect of running Deckard down and sadistically tearing him limb from limb. Death bed repentance does not impress me.

Also, I reiterate my earlier protests at the idea that negative human traits are inherently inhuman or soulless. A black soul is none the less a soul.

[SmartAlec]

I didn't find them unsympathetic; the Bladerunners at least. They have as their job the hunting down and destruction of emotionally unstable, nothing to lose supermen. As ordinary men against incredible odds, they have my deepest sympathies.

And the fact that they don't care doesn't detract from that. On the contrary, their detachment makes them seem professional and competent.

The primary problem is that to me, the replicants are too dangerous to be let free. They have no attachments, theoretically no moral instruction, little control over themselves, superhuman capabilities, and no reason not to get their way through the liberal application of violence. Some of them even have combat experience.

This was all true, up until the development of the Nexus 6 models. The Nexus 3s, 4s, 5s - they were exactly what you describe; potentially dangerous rogue machines. When hunting these, the Blade Runners have had to distance themselves emotionally from their work to stay objective, as their targets still looked and sounded human, but as you say, this was all part of their professional approach to what was seen as a necessary job.

The Nexus 6's are apparently different, though. They do seem to have the emotional breadth to be able to form attachments (Roy and Pris, Leon and his photographs, Zora and her snake). They do have things to lose; they can make friends, they may well be capable of emotional intimacy (albeit at a near-childlike level) and at the very bottom, they are aware of their own mortality and they don't want to die. Roy's group may have no reason not to get their way through violence, but yet they are apparently limiting themselves to killing in self-defence, demonstrating a level of self-control:

Leon kills Holden after being found out as a Replicant during his attempt to infiltrate the Tyrell Corporation as a worker (a much riskier approach than the application of violence, that's for sure). Leon tries to kill Deckhard when it becomes clear that he is hunting them and he has just gunned down Zora. Both Zora and Pris manage to force Deckhard into a position where he could easily be killed by them, yet they don't finish the job, Zora being more concerned with escape and Pris, well, who knows what Pris was thinking. Only Roy's murder of Eldon Tyrell stands out, and that comes after learning that Tyrell has condemned them to death by design. There are also some people they do not kill, even when it might be prudent - for example, Chou the eye designer. From observation, Roy's group do not seem to be any more or less intentionally dangerous than a group of humans would be in their place.

All that remains is the moral instruction, and the superhuman capabilities. The moral instruction can be given - pretty sure human war veterans and prostitutes aren't gunned down because they're emotionally screwed-up, even though the war veteran has skills that can be considered dangerous, and despite the crimes committed in the past by men and women with military training. As for the capabilities? They were given to each Replicant at 'birth', and I get the impression that were Roy's group given the option to exchange those powers for a longer lifespan and the chance to live on Earth, they would (could Replicants be designed to be 'depowered', by some chemical trigger that can be administered to them, rather than simply dying after 4 years? Can they be given a chance at a regular life? That question isn't raised, and we don't know the answer, but it's a thought). Thus, sentencing them to death because of those capabilities seems rather cruel. Could they not have a genuine 'retirement'? Is it out of fear of what Replicants can do or fear of what Replicants are that the decision to kill them comes?

The sad part is that the Blade Runners and society in general don't recognise these changes and what they might mean. The Blade Runners in particular have been so hardened or deadened emotionally by their experiences of gunning down human-impersonators that they likely lack the emotional breadth to consider that a Replicant can be anything other than what you describe, a malfunctioning machine.


Of course, not a few minutes earlier, he seemed to relish the prospect of running Deckard down and sadistically tearing him limb from limb. Death bed repentance does not impress me.

Well, now, be fair. Deckhard had come to their hiding-place with the intention to kill them both, and had just fought and gunned down Roy's lover. And this, coming so soon after Roy had been faced with the bleak truth: that for him and his kind, there was no hope. Would an average human being in his place feel differently?

The fact that he steps back from this murderous and fatalistic state of mind and makes the conscious decision to save his enemy's life before he, Roy, dies, should not be cheapened by the fact that he dies soon afterward. To my mind, it makes things more impressive - with all the grim facts delivered to Roy, it would make perfect sense to let Deckhard fall to his death. All life is meaningless, there is no hope, etc etc. But Roy came to Earth looking for more life, and and at the end he holds on to the truth that life, all life, is precious.

That is the truth that 2019 American society, and the Blade Runners, are having trouble accepting, or even percieving.

Edit: as an aside and for the sake of clarity, I believe it's mentined in the movie that the Nexus 6 models are quite far in advance of the previous models in terms of physical, mental and even emotional capability. Thus, up until the Nexus 6 development, the odds the Blade Runners faced were not so impossible, as the Replicants they hunted were closer to human levels of intelligence and resilience, and possibly were less inclined to fight on or try to run when cornered.

[Irenaeus]

First of all, I'm impressed with the amount of work you put into this thread.


Irenaeus:


Well, whether a moral is "ham-fisted" or not is a subjective thing. Personally, I think it's easy to point out problems without suggesting answers to them. Isn't that how politics works in real life? :smallbiggrin: I keed, I keed.It is subjective. As I said, we just might not have compatibe tastes here. To explain my tastes here in a simplifyed manner: the more I feel a director/writer is trying to manipulate me or try to impose his or hers views on me, the more crappy I usually feel the movie is. I like issues being highlighted. I like being provoked to thought. And I like multi-faceted movies. But when the problems come with a pre-packaged solution - even ones I agree with - I seldom like them. Art isn't politics, but you know that. :smallsmile:
It is incredibly easy to suggest a solution to a problem, whan you are in absolute control of the universe in which the problem resides. I'm quite sure I can write a story in which I solve all the worlds problems using my superior moral compass and sheer genius, but I doubt it will be good or believable. It might also easily be a bit preachy.

There seldom seem to be a single good solution to many problems in life, and I prefer movies which reflect that.


Okay, maybe a little. But I think the average North Korean of the current day lives in a worse environment than the street types in Bladerunner. Ditto for a Darfur refugee. And Warhammer 40K is of course GRIMDARK to the point it almost become comical. My point is, I've seen worse, both in and out of fiction.
Wait, WH40k is almost comical? :smallbiggrin:
Anyway, I don't think the point of a SF dystopia is to make it worse (speaking from a humanitarian standpoint) than other ones, but to make it better (from a storytelling perspective). They didn't get a great movie about suffering just because they whipped a guy for 120 minutes in the Passion of the Christ, they just got a lot of whipping.

[Avilan the Grey]

Kasrkin & Brewdude:

When I watched it as a kid I hated the Bladerunners, because I saw them as badguys.
They are not. The real badguys, the truly evil people in this film, are the designers. To design a sentient, fully intelligent living being, as slaves, and then put in a 4 year (I think it was) lifespan...

And Brewdude, don't mix "soul" into this. At the very least that argument hinges on the idea that the person you argue with agrees that such a thing exists to begin with. The replicants are Intelligent (full human IQ, or higher), Sentient (fully aware of what they are, and that they only have four years to live). That is more than enough to be considered human in my book.

As I see it the Bladerunners are a necessary evil.

[latwPIAT]

There are also some people they do not kill, even when it might be prudent - for example, Chou the eye designer.

I'm almost certain he was killed. That might have been left out of one of the versions though.

What I really love about the movie, is that nearly every single character is actually a replicant. They "yellow-eyes" effect, which Ridley Scott revealed was a visual clue only the viewers could see is an effect shared by Priss, Zohra, Leon, Roy Batty, Rachel, Deckard, Holden, and if I remember correctly, da chief. In addition, Tyrell was a replicant in the original script.

Essentially, every single character that appears in more than one scene is a Replicant. The first time you watch the movie, you won't notice. So you think these people are human, even though they aren't. And you have no way to judge. All you have is a single visual clue that exists only on the fourth wall.

[Irenaeus]

I'm almost certain he was killed. That might have been left out of one of the versions though.

What I really love about the movie, is that nearly every single character is actually a replicant. They "yellow-eyes" effect, which Ridley Scott revealed was a visual clue only the viewers could see is an effect shared by Priss, Zohra, Leon, Roy Batty, Rachel, Deckard, Holden, and if I remember correctly, da chief. In addition, Tyrell was a replicant in the original script.

Essentially, every single character that appears in more than one scene is a Replicant. The first time you watch the movie, you won't notice. So you think these people are human, even though they aren't. And you have no way to judge. All you have is a single visual clue that exists only on the fourth wall.I find that interpretation really unsatisfying. For me it completely destroys any semblance of plot cohersion. Luckily, whatever Ridley Scott says is irrelevant to me, and the plot of the movie seems to work very well in spite of his personal take on the story. He went completely overboard with it, but luckily ended up making so little of many of his more inane plot elements that many different and more obvious interpretations work better.

The whole thing almost makes me a real fan of Barthes.

[Mordar]

This is, in fact, the driving message of the movie for me. Does the technological wonder of the future, the ability to simulate life, to create whatever is needed in a sterile fashion, lead to the extinguishing of the human soul? Does the desire for power and money rely upon the exploitation of technology...or of people? If "soulless" humans are driving civilization, can civilization create anything with a soul?

Is that even a question? Human civilization seems to plenty soulful. Desire, exploitation, lust; seems to me like mankind hasn't changed a bit. I say this without cynicism. Human nature is comprised of everything man is and chooses to be.

Soul refers to the "divine spark", not "human nature". For fear of violating anti-religion statutes, I'll just say this: Exploitation, lust, ruthless ambition - these are all presented as "ungoodly" things foisted upon mankind by their baser side as represented by some red guy with horns and a pitchfork. Altruism, fellowship, charity - these are the elements of the soul, granted by some old guy with a beard to raise us up above the base.


Plus, why the diss on artsy? Properly executed, style has a substance all its own. See Equilibrium, The Boondock Saints, and Hero (Which also had regular substance) for what I consider to be exemplars of this.

The "diss on artsy" is this - from my perspective, films/books/whatevers that employ various, often unusual or novel, techniques for the sake of advancing the real topic of the work are "artistic". Those that use artistic techniques in an attempt to try to add validity to their work or justify their existance are "artsy". I think Tarantino, for instance, is "artsy" because he's trying to make his work more "valid" (or trendy or whatever word you might choose) by using kitsch, dated techniques and the like. I admit there can be a fine line between being artistic or artsy, nostalgic or retro, enlightening or preaching. You use the phrases "properly executed" and "style has a substance all its own" - I think that's an excellent point. In my opinion, when properly executed, the style advances the topic. When improperly executed, the substance that is the style overshadows the topic.


The replicants were nicer, not more human. As above, I consider vice as well as virtue as necessary to being human. We are not human without our sins. I dislike the attitude that the negative parts of our existence are characterized as not being part of our nature. The use of the word "humane" as describing something positive is a pet peeve of mine. Also, had more respect for life? Leon and Roy's girlfriend were both actively trying to kill Deckard, and Roy himself was looking forward to ripping Deckard apart limb from limb up until the last seconds of his life. It's easy to repent on your death bed, but I don't think Roy would have saved Deckard if he had the rest of his life to look forward to.

Again, I don't think human nature and the soul are one in the same. I should have been more careful in my syntax. The replicants were certainly planning on doing bad things to those who (a) had done bad things to them (Tyrell, as representing the death sentence he imposed on replicants) or (b) were trying very ardently to kill them. While these are certainly Bad Things(tm), keep in mind that they were fighting for their lives, including one anothers. Some with greater altruism or sense of purpose, to be sure. They are the ones being hunted for nothing other than belong to their species. If the replicants were ammoral killers that despised human kind why wouldn't the death toll have been much higher? Why wouldn't there have been more random killings of humans? If they were analogous to Blade Runners, but even more deadly capable, what's to stop them from killing at every opportunity they felt they could get away with it? Leon was clearly a "bad" guy, but even he is presented as being mentally unstable. For the most part, though, the replicants presented to us engage in violence to protect themselves or their families

Would Tyrell have "recanted on his death bed" and ordered the company to remove the preprogrammed expiration date (if possible)? Would he have even felt the vaguest inklings of the thought to do so? Having a soul doesn't mean being perfect, but it does allow the carrier of the soul to feel remorse, sympathy or empathy.



Once more, I problems with ambition being characterized as soulless. Mankind's darker impulses are just as human as his nobler ones.

But the soul isn't the province of man, its a gift to man. Not noble impulses versus dark impulses, but the spark of the divine. Also, keep in mind it's not ambition that's being looked down upon, but the disregarding of all others in the pursuit of that ambition (hence the "souless pursuit of power").



{Snip me rambling about seeing movies 20+ years after they came out and having difficulty placing them in the context of time}
And yet Dirty Harry wasn't cheesy to me at all. I found it compelling, which comprised me, since most references to it are lampoon and parody. Scarface also had an impressive majesty to it. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly was simply stellar. The Magnificent Seven was... well, magnificent. There is only one time I can remeber when I watched an old classic and laughed at it: Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds. While what you describe may occur, I don't think it's happening to me here.


I didn't necessarily mean that you were under the effect of this trend...it was just a side-commentary. Strangely, I think the feel of the original Dirty Harry film might once again be attractive to modern movie audiences. Though a fan of Clint's westerns, GB&U was never a favorite of mine, though it certainly set trends in movie making. Magnificent Seven was good, no doubt. Seven Samurai had more of a "message" perhaps, but Magnificent Seven was much more watchable. You know, the one part of The Birds I really liked was the woman sitting outside the school smoking as the birds began to fill the playground/buildings. One of the key elements of my original point, though, was that the topic/genre in question be rather fledgling. Cop movies (or at least 'law-and-order' movies) and westerns were both very well established by the time most of the examples you cite came along, even if the "Maverick Cop" sub-genre (to borrow from your comments) was a bit more novel. Again, side-commentary, but that's the fun.


Also, I reiterate my earlier protests at the idea that negative human traits are inherently inhuman or soulless. A black soul is none the less a soul.


The concept of a black soul is an interesting topic, but from the somewhat black-and-white perspective (pun only partly intended) for purposes of this discussion, the black soul is the refutation of the divine spark and thus intending to be soulless. Depending on your theological bent, the black soul might be in need of redemption...or it might be evidence of the lack of a soul.

Fun chat!

- Mordar

[Brewdude]

Looks like my trolling caught a few fish. Most of the arguments I put forth there were devils advocate issues that spark the same debate that the movie was supposed to spark. It seemed that that the OP didn't notice that the movie brought up those questions in his OP, or that they were of insufficient badassitude to merit it's listing in best sf of all time.

Granted I'd say it belongs more in "important" sf movies of all time rather than best, but that's just me.

Bah, I just can't resist:

Difference between slaves and robots: robots can be programmed to not fear death. :)

[Avilan the Grey]

Bah, I just can't resist:

Difference between slaves and robots: robots can be programmed to not fear death. :)

Exactly, which is why the true evil in that setting is the Creators. The ones that insists on creating living, breathing human beings and tag them with a lifespan of 4 years and let them be aware of it all.

[pendell]

Exactly, which is why the true evil in that setting is the Creators. The ones that insists on creating living, breathing human beings and tag them with a lifespan of 4 years and let them be aware of it all.


Is it really so much better to have a lifespan of 80 years? Like the replicants, 'standard' humans have a finite lifespan and are very, very aware of it.

There's a LOT of implications to that little paragraph you wrote above, and it struck me forcefully. If we condemn Tyrell for what he did, are we not also condemning whatever-it-was that made humans with a finite life span? But that will rapidly cross the barrier of what's permissible on this forum.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Tyrant]

Is it really so much better to have a lifespan of 80 years? Like the replicants, 'standard' humans have a finite lifespan and are very, very aware of it.
In my opinion, there are differences. Humans experience life from the begining and actually live it. Most people at some point accept that death is inevitable and learn to live with it. This can take years or decades. Suddenly starting life and then learning that your very, very short life will be that of a slave is considerably different. Especially knowing that your masters will live many times longer than you while reaping the fruits of your labors and creating more disposable slaves to replace you. Life for regular people is hard enough, but the life of the replicants is like a cruel joke.

There's a LOT of implications to that little paragraph you wrote above, and it struck me forcefully. If we condemn Tyrell for what he did, are we not also condemning whatever-it-was that made humans with a finite life span? But that will rapidly cross the barrier of what's permissible on this forum.
I believe a lot of people do make that condemnation you speak of. Medical science seems to be doing everything they can to get around it and possibly find a way to get rid of it altogether. I believe a fair number of people would choose physical immortality if they could (thus agreeing with the aforementioned condemnation). Barring some horrible downside I know I would.

[Neon Knight]

SmartAlec:



This was all true, up until the development of the Nexus 6 models. The Nexus 3s, 4s, 5s - they were exactly what you describe; potentially dangerous rogue machines. When hunting these, the Blade Runners have had to distance themselves emotionally from their work to stay objective, as their targets still looked and sounded human, but as you say, this was all part of their professional approach to what was seen as a necessary job.

The Nexus 6's are apparently different, though. They do seem to have the emotional breadth to be able to form attachments (Roy and Pris, Leon and his photographs, Zora and her snake). They do have things to lose; they can make friends, they may well be capable of emotional intimacy (albeit at a near-childlike level) and at the very bottom, they are aware of their own mortality and they don't want to die.


I wasn't aware of the vast difference between the different iterations of Nexus.

Also, you'll pardon my indiscretion of vague phrasing; I meant attachments to society. Their is no moral imperative to be ruled and constrained by society, such as that described in Plato's writings.



Roy's group may have no reason not to get their way through violence, but yet they are apparently limiting themselves to killing in self-defence, demonstrating a level of self-control:

Leon kills Holden after being found out as a Replicant during his attempt to infiltrate the Tyrell Corporation as a worker (a much riskier approach than the application of violence, that's for sure). Leon tries to kill Deckhard when it becomes clear that he is hunting them and he has just gunned down Zora. Both Zora and Pris manage to force Deckhard into a position where he could easily be killed by them, yet they don't finish the job, Zora being more concerned with escape and Pris, well, who knows what Pris was thinking. Only Roy's murder of Eldon Tyrell stands out, and that comes after learning that Tyrell has condemned them to death by design. There are also some people they do not kill, even when it might be prudent - for example, Chou the eye designer. From observation, Roy's group do not seem to be any more or less intentionally dangerous than a group of humans would be in their place.

Perhaps a low body count is better for their purposes than a high one. Bodies, after all, attract attention, and Roy's goal was to gain longevity. Attracting Bladerunners is not conductive to this goal, and so perhaps their restraint is for stealth, rather than out of any respect for life.

Also, I interpreted the destruction of those pipes on Chou's suit as the severing of his life support. I thought his death was somewhat implied, but I'll grant that the cut I watched didn't ever establish him as dead.

I can't precisely remember where, but I think I remember someone telling Deckard that the replicants had hijacked a ship to get to earth and killed people to do it? I'm not too sure about that, so don;t quote me or anything.



All that remains is the moral instruction, and the superhuman capabilities. The moral instruction can be given - pretty sure human war veterans and prostitutes aren't gunned down because they're emotionally screwed-up, even though the war veteran has skills that can be considered dangerous, and despite the crimes committed in the past by men and women with military training. As for the capabilities? They were given to each Replicant at 'birth', and I get the impression that were Roy's group given the option to exchange those powers for a longer lifespan and the chance to live on Earth, they would (could Replicants be designed to be 'depowered', by some chemical trigger that can be administered to them, rather than simply dying after 4 years? Can they be given a chance at a regular life? That question isn't raised, and we don't know the answer, but it's a thought). Thus, sentencing them to death because of those capabilities seems rather cruel. Could they not have a genuine 'retirement'? Is it out of fear of what Replicants can do or fear of what Replicants are that the decision to kill them comes?


Many humans have whole childhoods of moral instruction and still turn out bad. I've often wondered how a being like a replicant, which must have a very poor sense of self-identity, deals with trauma such as combat.



The sad part is that the Blade Runners and society in general don't recognise these changes and what they might mean. The Blade Runners in particular have been so hardened or deadened emotionally by their experiences of gunning down human-impersonators that they likely lack the emotional breadth to consider that a Replicant can be anything other than what you describe, a malfunctioning machine.


Hm. Touche.



Well, now, be fair. Deckhard had come to their hiding-place with the intention to kill them both, and had just fought and gunned down Roy's lover. And this, coming so soon after Roy had been faced with the bleak truth: that for him and his kind, there was no hope. Would an average human being in his place feel differently?


Probably not, no.



The fact that he steps back from this murderous and fatalistic state of mind and makes the conscious decision to save his enemy's life before he, Roy, dies, should not be cheapened by the fact that he dies soon afterward. To my mind, it makes things more impressive - with all the grim facts delivered to Roy, it would make perfect sense to let Deckhard fall to his death. All life is meaningless, there is no hope, etc etc. But Roy came to Earth looking for more life, and and at the end he holds on to the truth that life, all life, is precious.

That is the truth that 2019 American society, and the Blade Runners, are having trouble accepting, or even percieving.


While calling it a "truth" as if it was a moral absolute is something I am hesitant to do, I agree with the general sentiment. Touche.



Edit: as an aside and for the sake of clarity, I believe it's mentined in the movie that the Nexus 6 models are quite far in advance of the previous models in terms of physical, mental and even emotional capability. Thus, up until the Nexus 6 development, the odds the Blade Runners faced were not so impossible, as the Replicants they hunted were closer to human levels of intelligence and resilience, and possibly were less inclined to fight on or try to run when cornered.

As above, I wasn't aware of the gap between the abilities of 6 and the earlier models.



Avlian the Grey:


Kasrkin & Brewdude:

When I watched it as a kid I hated the Bladerunners, because I saw them as badguys.
They are not. The real badguys, the truly evil people in this film, are the designers. To design a sentient, fully intelligent living being, as slaves, and then put in a 4 year (I think it was) lifespan...

And Brewdude, don't mix "soul" into this. At the very least that argument hinges on the idea that the person you argue with agrees that such a thing exists to begin with. The replicants are Intelligent (full human IQ, or higher), Sentient (fully aware of what they are, and that they only have four years to live). That is more than enough to be considered human in my book.

As I see it the Bladerunners are a necessary evil.

Since I've been displaying a more sympathetic view of the Bladerunners so far, I'll just say I agree with you.


latwPIAT:


I'm almost certain he was killed. That might have been left out of one of the versions though.

What I really love about the movie, is that nearly every single character is actually a replicant. They "yellow-eyes" effect, which Ridley Scott revealed was a visual clue only the viewers could see is an effect shared by Priss, Zohra, Leon, Roy Batty, Rachel, Deckard, Holden, and if I remember correctly, da chief. In addition, Tyrell was a replicant in the original script.

Essentially, every single character that appears in more than one scene is a Replicant. The first time you watch the movie, you won't notice. So you think these people are human, even though they aren't. And you have no way to judge. All you have is a single visual clue that exists only on the fourth wall.

Okay, if that's true then this film just entered Donnie Darko territory. Or at least "sound and fury" territory.


Mordar:


I don't have enough theological knowledge to properly answer most of this, but there was a bit I wanted to address.



If the replicants were ammoral killers that despised human kind why wouldn't the death toll have been much higher? Why wouldn't there have been more random killings of humans? If they were analogous to Blade Runners, but even more deadly capable, what's to stop them from killing at every opportunity they felt they could get away with it? Leon was clearly a "bad" guy, but even he is presented as being mentally unstable. For the most part, though, the replicants presented to us engage in violence to protect themselves or their families


It is possible that apparent replicant restraint is actually a desire for stealth, not an opposition to needless bloodshed. I believe that there were some casualties incurred in the hijacking of the ship that brought them to earth, but I can't remember enough details to say anything concrete.



Overall, I think I've gained some appreciation for why people have made such a big deal out oft his film. I can also say that I can see how this film is compelling or striking to others, even if it isn't to me. I'll be watching 2001: A Space Odyssey soon. So I'll probably be back real quick.