Some General discussion.

Hey all,<BR>Sorry if I?m covering old ground here, but I?ve just got a couple of points re: The Movie that I?d like to discuss, no major questions, just some interesting points.<BR>What genre is Blade Runner? I personally inclined to classify it as Modern Noir. It seems to have all the hallmarks of the 1940-50s-filmmaking era. We have the hard-boiled detective (Deckard) who has the hard-boiled monologue (in the commercial cut at least) and then there is the femme fatal, Rachel who is dangerous (because she is a replicant) the continual rain and the overall darkness of the movie. There is Gaff, who provides the wonderful twist, whilst Roy proves to be the perfect nemesis, both evil and good at the same time. However there are many that have told me this is an unjustified parallel and that BR is merely a sci-fi action movie. Any thoughts on either argument?<BR><BR>Another point is the misogyny (pardon spelling) Is the film really as misogynistic as everyone really makes out? A recent discussion in a class had a friend of mine bringing up the brilliant point that BR is actually feministic. The movie?s only major female roles are replicants (eg. Pris, Zorah and Rachel). Although this can be taken as an assault upon females, doesn?t Scott portray replicants to be really righteous? The replicants are sympathised with more than any human in the movie (except maybe Sebastian). The women in the move are all strong except for Rachel who is the typical noir female who is continually thought of as being weak. The movie shows more fear of these women than hate. The audience sympathises with Pris and the only mysogynist in the movie is Deckard who is drunk at the time (don?t quote me on that last statement, he may have been sober). <BR>Oh, and one question. I have been told that Tyrell is a replicant? what indicates this?<BR><BR>Fast response would be greatly appreciated!<BR><BR>Thanks!<BR><BR>Paul<BR>

Paul,<BR>Addressing some of your points.....<BR><BR>1. BR's genre - well, certainly as a piece of filmaking, their is the Noir-quality to it, though I would not neccessarily equate it completly with film-noir. Your use of the phrase "Modern Noir" might actually be an appropriate one. This said, the overall genre, IMHO, as far as storyline goes would fall into the realm of Sci-fi, perhaps even sub-categorized by some as cyberpunk. As the source material is DADoES, I think Sci-fi is the category that most suits it. <BR><BR>As for it being misogynistic, I do not believe this is the case. Let's keep in mine that there were equal numbers of female and male replicants. I'd say that the approach to both men and women was pretty even handed. <BR><BR>As for Tyrell being a rep., in early drafts of the script, it was written that Tyrell was indeed a rep, that his body was in cryo-suspension due to a terminal illness, and that Roy does find this out. The source material for this info is from Future Noir by Paul Sammnon, considered by many to be the BR bible, for its overall completeness into the making of BR.<BR>
[addsig]

2nd_Hand,<BR>I agree with most of your points, and thankyou for your help!<BR><BR>With regard to the gender differences in the film, I was not implying that there were only female replicants, but that the only developed female characters *were* replicants. Male characters such as Gaff, Bryant and Deckard (depending on how you feel about what he is) as well as Holden are all human male characters, whilst all females, except possibly one or two minor roles are replicants.<BR><BR>Another question I have is (sorry for all the questioning) that many have stated that if Deckard is a replicant (this is not the question) then his memories would be from Gaff..... what evidence is there of this. Deckard knew Rachel's memories without them being his, the fact that Gaff knows what Deckard is thinking surly can't be a sign of this.<BR><BR><BR>Just some things to ponder,<BR><BR><BR>Paul

I think you need to re-visit the film a little. Roy and Leon, are not what I would call minor characters, especially not Roy. Roy is really a very central character, the anithesis to Deckard.<BR><BR>As to Deckard being a replicant, his memories would not have come from Gaff. If we accept the premise that he is a rep, then Gaff simply knew he was a rep and found out about his memories in the same manner Deckard found out about Rachel's, from a higher source. Deckard found out about Rachel's memories from Tyrell. As for Gaff, my best guess is that he found out from either Bryant or Tyrell. This hinges on the clue that is provided at the end of the movie in the Director's Cut version. Earlier in that version, Deckard dreams of a unicorn. Gaff, at the end of the film (in all versions) leaves an origami unicorn in Deckard's hallway which Deckard notices, picks up, and seems to give an understanding gesture. This is one ofthe key points in the Deck-a-rep argument. <BR><BR>Have you seen the Director's cut version of the film? It may clear up this issue for you.
[addsig]

I'm afraid you are still missunderstanding what I am trying to say <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_frown.gif"> I do not mean in any way that Roy or Leon are smaller roles, but that Zhora, Rachel and Pris are the *only* female characters in the movie (except for 1 or 2 vendors). These characters are all replicants. THe fact that Roy and Leon are male replicants does not factor into this as there are male humans in the movie as well, but no major female humans. I did not mean in any way that Roy or Leon are lesser characters.<IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"><BR><BR>I have seen the directors cut, but I have also read many comments on the colloquy forum which state with utter certainty that Deckard's memories are Gaff's. I did not despute the rep argument, merely pondered where the Gaffs memory argument originated from (eg. WHere are any clues pointing to this in what material) <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"><BR><BR>Thanks again!<BR><BR>Paul

Yes, I think I understand you better now. <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif">You're initial comments were not quite clear. I see where you are going, and it is an interesting point. That said, I think simply that it is a matter of the story design that there are no other female humans. I don't believe it is misogynistic, at least not intentionally. If I recall correctly, even DADoES is similar in structure, as most of the females, with the exception of Iran, Deckard's wife, were reps. It seems that this format was stuck to for the movie as well. <BR><BR>Now, as to whether or not those are Gaff's memories, well, I have not heard that argument, and I for one don't see the proof of it. I know you are asking basically the same thing, and I can't help you there, as I personally beleive that they are memories from elsewhere, that Gaff was made aware of. There has been another argument made that Deckard was human at one time, and that the memories were from the human Deckard, who is now presumably dead. Gaff could have acquired the knowledge of those memories, if he knew Deckard (the human one) when he was alive. <BR><BR>Am I on the right path to your answer now? <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_wink.gif"><BR>
[addsig]

I personally still like to think of Deckard as human (me being part of the minority). But if he really is a rep, I agree with 2nd_Hand and belive he's a rep of a REAL Deckard--one that doesn't necessaraly has to be dead. He could've retired off-world or been part of some witness relocation-type program. <BR><BR>But here's my question: It seems that Deckard has been around longer than Recheal. So why does Tyrell basically states that Racheal is a prototype when it comes to memory implants? If Deckard has implants (memories, that is--ha ha!), who knows how long Tyrell has had the ability to do this. <BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: endzem on 2001-09-26 20:46 ]</font>

Well, thats an interesting point... An interesting point was made on the same matter on a different board recently.... <BR>"2001/09/22, 17:09, The Replicant Slayer: (6)<BR> The whole idea of Deckard being a replicant may be a fun thing to toss around, but if you analyze things a little, the pieces really don't fit. Let me explain. Deckard does not show replicant-ish behavior. Even if he was hooked up with memory implants, his behavior would clearly show something that would tip the viewer off. Sadly, it doesn't. When Gaff leaves the tinfoil unicorn figure in the doorway, even Deckard doesn't believe that he is a replicant. That look on his face isn't an agreement with Gaff, it's a skepticism look. And I agree with Deckard. Anyone who says Deckard is a replicant based on the words of Ridley Scott are simply lazy and are trying to find an easy way to prove a point that doesn't exist. Blade Runner is much bigger than one person. It's a film for the fans. Sure, Ridley is a strong force, but it's the fans who make the film so interesting. And finally, the idea of Deckard being a replicant would mean that Bryant, Tyrell, and all other characters in the film would be part of a conspiracy to make Deckard think he was human, and that idea is more outlandish than some of the topics in K.W. Jeter's Blade Runner books.I'm sorry, pro-rep fans, but the evidence just doesn't go with the flow of the film or its ideas. The Deckard character is not complex enough to be a humanoid robot."<BR><BR>I feel this argument is correct. If Deckard is a replicant then the whole world must be working bloody hard simply to prove to Deckard that he is a replicant. Personally, I like the 'Deckard Is A Replicant" twist, but I see how hard this is! <BR><BR>If Tyrell only just discoverded the momory implants, how could Tyrell have memories either? (according to 'Future Noir' Tyrell was a replicant created when Sebastian killed the original) The technology must have been around then, or the new Tyrell knew he was a replicant (of which there has been to implication). Thoughts, Discussions?<BR><BR>Paul

While I agree in the humanity of Deckard, I don't like the prhase of "deck being too complex to be just an humanoid robot"... Well, then what do you say about Roy? Isn't he complex? OK, I know we can`t see much of that complexity on the film, but what we do see, speaks loud for Roy's rich, non-robot personality.<BR> <BR><IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif"> Damn, I got it wrong... Well, I'll leave it as is, cause my opinion is still the same. <BR>_________________<BR><!-- BBCode Start --><B>-Revel in your Time-</B><!-- BBCode End --><BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Centauro on 2001-09-27 23:56 ]</font>

Yeah, I can see what you mean. The "Deckard Being Too Complex" is merely a quote. I agree with what is being said about the whole conspiricy having to occur, but not entirly with that bit. Scott/Dick have used the film to show how much *more* complex the replicants are to humans, having infinatly more emotion (eg. Batty's saving of Deckards Life) and although as I stated before (I think I did at least ((wishes he could see the past messages while typing, and no, I'm not going to open them in a seperate window 'cause that would be too logical <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"> )) I prefer the ending if Deckard *is* a replicant, it screws up the complexity issue, either that or I'm rambling again <IMG SRC="/forum/images/smiles/icon_smile.gif"><BR><BR>My question is, assuming Deckard *is* a replicant (humour me for a bit pls) where can we see a human figure to compare the complexity/emotions to? Bryant? Gaff? Holden? All these characters are minor sub plots with little importance or depth (prepares for the shooting line for saying this) (Although Gaff is my fave character int he movie, I mean come on! He has gold eyes, a cane and a gotee!) Is there an entire issue being shown here or merely one side of an entire debate? Even if Deckard *is* human, surely he is only one example of human kind and may simply be a shallow, bitter person who does not display "Human" emotions.<BR><BR>Balls in your court guys!<BR><BR>Paul

I think that most of Deckard's pathetic-like and sometimes annoying behavior is carried over from the book. In DADoES, Deckard seems burnt-out (workwise), has a lazy-ass wife that does nothing but plug herself in the Organ mood and Empathy Box all day (and that also seems shallow and materialistic), and he's frustrated because his pet (a sheep) is a replicant--which say's a lot as far as one's social status at the time. <BR><BR>The problem in the movie is that it doesn't introduce these factors. 1) It implies that Deckard had retiered--hence he shouldn't be stressed out about his ex job. 2) He has no nagging wife. And 3) he's got no replicant pets. So you have to ask yourself, "What's this guy's problem? Why does he act so pathetic/apathetic?"<BR><BR>

One reason why Deck is such a burn out may be that whatever caused him to quit the police department and the Blade Runner unit reallly hit him hard. He may of had a breakdown, and by that I don't nessarily mean a nervious one but just got profoundly fed up with the world and decided to withdraw from things. It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened to someone (I know I've had my moments). By virtue of his experiences he may of taken on a self imposed hermatage or something of a like nature, call it what you want. He would not be the first "Drop out" from society.<BR><BR>I suppose it may not be a really big deal, but I always wondered what Deckard did after he left the police force. Is he liveing off apention, doing private eye work, odd jobs, what? At least in DADOES he still is a Blade Runner. Maybe what ever made him leave the force was somting dirty and... opps, don't want to go spinning off into a ne w spealation , do I?
[addsig]

One reason why Deck is such a burn out may be that whatever caused him to quit the police department and the Blade Runner unit reallly hit him hard. He may of had a breakdown, and by that I don't nessarily mean a nervious one but just got profoundly fed up with the world and decided to withdraw from things. It wouldn't be the first time something like that has happened to someone (I know I've had my moments). By virtue of his experiences he may of taken on a self imposed hermatage or something of a like nature, call it what you want. He would not be the first "Drop out" from society.<BR><BR>I suppose it may not be a really big deal, but I always wondered what Deckard did after he left the police force. Is he liveing off apention, doing private eye work, odd jobs, what? At least in DADOES he still is a Blade Runner. Maybe what ever made him leave the force was somting dirty and... opps, don't want to go spinning off into a ne w spealation , do I?
[addsig]

I can think of two reasons why the film made Deckard out to be both pathetic and ex-blade runner. One point is that the movie is (as I think we agreed on) filmed in the style of film noir (although it is still sci-fi/cyber punk). Scott probably wanted to keep this theme and therefore had Deckard retired (no, not killed) from the police force as did many other movies (eg. the Maltese Falcon).<BR>Another reason is maybe to add another angle on Deckard (although I'm probably contradicting myself here). It shows that he doesn't *want* to do the job.<BR><BR>Deckard could be like he is for many reasons, but what I want to know is why is Deckard the only human who is looked into in any emotional depth? Is this to hide the fact that maybe the replicants *aren't* so much better than humans?<BR><BR>*sorry about any contradiction!*<BR><BR>Paul

Sorry about the doubble poast, I must of studdered<BR><BR>_________________<BR>In a mad world, only the mad are truly sane. <BR> -A.K.<BR><BR><font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Steyr on 2001-09-30 00:21 ]</font>