BladeZone's Off World Forums

Posted: **Mon Oct 22, 2007 11:31 am**

maledoro wrote:Since I tend to view science fiction (and other) films as art and not documentaries, I don't see the need to update films' temporal settings just to stay in tune with actual events.

Fortunately, no one is suggesting that. But I thought the idea of removing the timestamp at the beginning of the film (not updating it) was an interesting one. Of course, it's something we never would have done. Just like we wouldn't have updated the charge on Deckard's vid-phon call to Rachael.

Anyway...back to Holden...

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 4:50 am**

Charles de Lauzirika wrote:Anyway...back to Holden...

hm... you seem like pretty much interested in the Holden thing. this leads me thinking there are new points of view or subtle clues about his character you're waiting for us to catch down? hm... "Trade... Trade at..." :lol:

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:45 am**

Charles de Lauzirika wrote:Fortunately, no one is suggesting that. But I thought the idea of removing the timestamp at the beginning of the film (not updating it) was an interesting one. Of course, it's something we never would have done. Just like we wouldn't have updated the charge on Deckard's vid-phon call to Rachael.

I'm in total agreement with you; I was responding to eccentricbeing's "2001" statement.

Charles de Lauzirika wrote:Anyway...back to Holden...

Sorry!

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 9:36 am**

I think Holden needs a vacation.

What a fantasy though, to be reading "Treasure Island". It makes you wonder what the fiction written in 2019 would read like, if people's imaginations would draw that far in that bleak kind of setting.

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 11:27 am**

Would they put a replicant on life support? I doubt it, especially since Deckard seems to track down the replicants without Holden's help anyway.

In one deleted scene, Gaff refers to Deckard as "the deep one." Which I find interesting since Holden is doing most of the metaphysical theorizing. What does Gaff know that we don't?

I can't wait for you guys to see this stuff!

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 1:16 pm**

Charles de Lauzirika wrote:Would they put a replicant on life support? I doubt it, especially since Deckard seems to track down the replicants without Holden's help anyway.

They could also rebuild a replicant, couldn't they? Provided the replicant's not close to shutdown date, of course. I sort of have this mental picture of replicants, and also people, for that matter, being "repaired" with biological spare parts. Lose an arm? No problem...get a new one fused on with stem-cell "glue" used in the fusion process. Of course the part would be made with your own cloned tissue, so no messy rejection.

I suspect the "life support" unit is only temporary while they grow some new spare parts for Holden. They patch Holden up, and back to work he goes. One wonders if there is a new stomach and new liver in Inspector Bryant's future... :wink:

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:06 pm**

msgeek wrote:They could also rebuild a replicant, couldn't they? Provided the replicant's not close to shutdown date, of course. I sort of have this mental picture of replicants, and also people, for that matter, being "repaired" with biological spare parts. Lose an arm? No problem...get a new one fused on with stem-cell "glue" used in the fusion process. Of course the part would be made with your own cloned tissue, so no messy rejection.

I suspect the "life support" unit is only temporary while they grow some new spare parts for Holden. They patch Holden up, and back to work he goes. One wonders if there is a new stomach and new liver in Inspector Bryant's future...

Posted: **Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:44 pm**

msgeek wrote:
Charles de Lauzirika wrote:Would they put a replicant on life support? I doubt it, especially since Deckard seems to track down the replicants without Holden's help anyway.

They could also rebuild a replicant, couldn't they? Provided the replicant's not close to shutdown date, of course. I sort of have this mental picture of replicants, and also people, for that matter, being "repaired" with biological spare parts. Lose an arm? No problem...get a new one fused on with stem-cell "glue" used in the fusion process. Of course the part would be made with your own cloned tissue, so no messy rejection.

I suspect the "life support" unit is only temporary while they grow some new spare parts for Holden. They patch Holden up, and back to work he goes. One wonders if there is a new stomach and new liver in Inspector Bryant's future... :wink:

I laughed. In any event, I never have and never will regard Holden as a replicant. But the theory about putting him on LS to rebuild his damage makes sense, when you think about the line about how long it took the doctors to realize that they had been operating on a replicant (one of the ones from earlier).

"It's a wipeout Deck, they're almost us!"

It seems very, very ironic that Dave would say that, considering what Ridley has said about Deckard. It is also reminiscent of the bit from DADOES where there is apparently an entire HD run by rep-...er, andy's.

Which would also mean that Dave is not privy to Deckard being a replicant, which makes me wonder why Gaff needs a promotion so badly if HE knows but Holden doesn,t unless I'm really missing something with the BR officer ranking system.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:23 am**

Charles de Lauzirika wrote:Speaking of which, one interesting idea I read about over at IMDb involved removing the establishing date from the opening of the film. Given that there's no way Los Angeles will look like that in 12 years (or perhaps ever) how would you feel about that?

Since you asked, I like the idea of removing the 2019 date from the start of the film. And quite frankly was it ever really necessary in the first place? Why was adding a date at the start of this film so important when there are flying cars right at the beginning?

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 9:31 am**

Noneoftheabove wrote:
Charles de Lauzirika wrote:Speaking of which, one interesting idea I read about over at IMDb involved removing the establishing date from the opening of the film. Given that there's no way Los Angeles will look like that in 12 years (or perhaps ever) how would you feel about that?

Since you asked, I like the idea of removing the 2019 date from the start of the film. And quite frankly was it ever really necessary in the first place? Why was adding a date at the start of this film so important when there are flying cars right at the beginning?

I'm guessing to show that this is in fact the near future, so the audience can give themselves some kind of timeline.

I mean, to me, it's not that big a deal.

Posted: **Wed Oct 24, 2007 10:31 am**

you could always say some religious zealots rewound the calander to say the millenium hasn't approached yet, that would add a few more years on again

Posted: **Sat Nov 03, 2007 4:54 am**

Missing a time frame hurts a story. It was one item that confused audiences who saw "The Shadow". It seriously hurt the reactions to that film.

Also, just because something is said in a film -even a documentary, the 'facts' stated may not necessarily be true.

In fiction, there is an assumption that the facts as stated are 'true' according to the author and not open for debate. In film, this rule is less defined.

Ultimately, we are left to interpret the film on the assumption that we are seeing the true story as presented.

If this is all accepted, then we can arrive at a limited view of the facts in the story. Since RS broke this rule; we are left arguing about what the film was about.

The result led me to formulate the "Holden Postulate".

If I am correct; Blade Runner is one of the most brilliant films ever. If I am wrong: RS is one of the most overrated directors ever.

The basis of the HP is that all imagery in the film has meaning and is not just included for visual effect. In this case- even RS has yet to fully understand what he has created. -Even the outtakes contribute to the film whether included or not.

The result is a 12 or 16 hour story that ultimately explains itself. In this case; the first eye sets the point of view and establishes the holder of the vision -Holden. It is his tortured imagery and pain that shapes the story that we are seeing. Everything he sees and feels has shaped the story we experience. Even his name is a subtle clue.

A later example of this kind of experience is the film "Jacob's Ladder" which presents a story that is actually one man's POV and not third person.

Posted: **Thu Dec 13, 2007 4:46 pm**

ridleynoir wrote:Never noticed the glow in holden's eye before...good catch.

Me2. Wow, I'm stunned. After all these years of studying and marveling over many (but as it seems not all ;-)

) frames of the film.

Posted: **Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:11 am**

A bit OT, but Jacob's Ladder was a brilliant film.

Tim Robbins' acting was amazing as he spirals deeper and deeper into a gritty, twisting dementia of a life. If you haven't seen it, the rental is quite worthwhile!

Watch it uninterrupted if possible and get your mind blown. I guarantee you'll watch it twice. :wink:

Posted: **Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:30 am**

Masao wrote:In this case; the first eye sets the point of view and establishes the holder of the vision -Holden.

Although after viewing Dangerous Days, the eye appears to belong to Leon.

BladeZone's Off World Forums

Holden...muddying the waters?