FAQ  •  Login

I hate Deckard as a Replicant

<<

maledoro

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 47

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:32 am

Location: Pleasuredome 69; Dystopia 23

Post Wed Oct 24, 2007 5:31 pm

deleted wrote:No, his body of work isn't perfect. But what he HAS done that works, tends to work brilliantly. And even in his mediocre projects, his visual style is unparalleled.

There are several other directors who are on par with his visual style.


maledoro wrote:NOBODY had made the claim that they knew EVERYTHING about the sci-fi genre. Scott admitted to not liking nor knowing the least bit of sci-fi. A totally different argument.

deleted wrote:Scott is not entirely correct then, because regardless of either of those claims of his, I would rather have him direct a sci-fi film these days than most other directors. His previous work is a good enough resume to prove that he can handle the genre as well as, or better than, most of his contemporaries.

You never know. I have faith that he could put out another good sci-fi film, but he could also churn out something terrible, even with his success with Alien and Blade Runner (the former being my Number One favorite film). As I had said before, most of the ideas he had talked about during the production of Alien were horrible.
Image
<<

deleted

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1191

Joined: Sun May 14, 2006 7:11 pm

Location: The banks of chaos in my mind

Post Wed Oct 24, 2007 6:56 pm

maledoro wrote:
deleted wrote:No, his body of work isn't perfect. But what he HAS done that works, tends to work brilliantly. And even in his mediocre projects, his visual style is unparalleled.

There are several other directors who are on par with his visual style.

That's like saying all of the classical artists were the same because they were all really good. I prefer Scott's flavor of style over others, that's what I was getting at. I'm not saying other directors are bad.


maledoro wrote:You never know. I have faith that he could put out another good sci-fi film, but he could also churn out something terrible, even with his success with Alien and Blade Runner (the former being my Number One favorite film). As I had said before, most of the ideas he had talked about during the production of Alien were horrible.

...yet, they're not in the movie. There were ideas for Blade Runner that I absolutely revile that, thank GOD, didn't make it into the movie, yet I don't put Scott down for that or regard him any less.

Why do you doubt him so much?
[In reference to A Good Year] "So anyway, fuck 'em. It was a good film."
-Ridley Scott
<<

maledoro

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 47

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:32 am

Location: Pleasuredome 69; Dystopia 23

Post Thu Oct 25, 2007 6:45 am

deleted wrote:
maledoro wrote:
deleted wrote:No, his body of work isn't perfect. But what he HAS done that works, tends to work brilliantly. And even in his mediocre projects, his visual style is unparalleled.

There are several other directors who are on par with his visual style.

That's like saying all of the classical artists were the same because they were all really good. I prefer Scott's flavor of style over others, that's what I was getting at. I'm not saying other directors are bad.

No, it isn't. I just countered that he isn't the only director with a high level of visual style.

deleted wrote:
maledoro wrote:You never know. I have faith that he could put out another good sci-fi film, but he could also churn out something terrible, even with his success with Alien and Blade Runner (the former being my Number One favorite film). As I had said before, most of the ideas he had talked about during the production of Alien were horrible.

...yet, they're not in the movie. There were ideas for Blade Runner that I absolutely revile that, thank GOD, didn't make it into the movie, yet I don't put Scott down for that or regard him any less.

All I'm saying is that with Alien he was kept on a leash and was not allowed to run rampant.

deleted wrote:Why do you doubt him so much?

I don't. I'm just pointing out that he isn't infallable. Sure, he's proven that he can put out great films, but that doesn't mean that he's unable to make a dud.
Image
<<

Tryfan915

User avatar

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 71

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:33 pm

Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Post Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:19 am

maledoro wrote:I'm just pointing out that he isn't infallable. Sure, he's proven that he can put out great films, but that doesn't mean that he's unable to make a dud.


Like I said earlier, it's down to the script, or more specifically Ridley's choice of script. Something he doesn't always get right.
Image
<<

maledoro

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 47

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:32 am

Location: Pleasuredome 69; Dystopia 23

Post Thu Oct 25, 2007 10:46 am

Tryfan915 wrote:
maledoro wrote:I'm just pointing out that he isn't infallable. Sure, he's proven that he can put out great films, but that doesn't mean that he's unable to make a dud.


Like I said earlier, it's down to the script, or more specifically Ridley's choice of script. Something he doesn't always get right.

I totally agree with that, but deleted was referring to Scott's visual style. Along with the films he's made that looked great, there were some that were unremarkable in the visuals. I will go as far as saying that Legend was subpar for even lesser directors.
Image
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Thu Oct 25, 2007 7:35 pm

I always liked Legend. Even though when I was younger I thought it was kind of 'girley'. It has a huge cult following now, though not as big as BR. The Toy versions of 'Darkness' sell for large $ too.

http://www.monstersinmotion.com/catalog ... ts_id=9204

I would have to say it was visionary as well, just less my cup of tea.
Image
<<

maledoro

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 47

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:32 am

Location: Pleasuredome 69; Dystopia 23

Post Thu Oct 25, 2007 8:28 pm

To each their own, I guess. I thought that it was cheesier than Wisconsin.
Image
<<

Tryfan915

User avatar

Rep Detector
Rep Detector

Posts: 71

Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 5:33 pm

Location: East Yorkshire, UK

Post Fri Oct 26, 2007 3:17 am

maledoro wrote:[I will go as far as saying that Legend was subpar for even lesser directors.


I saw Legend on TV once, it didn't leave an impression. But I've been revisiting old films recently, so if it appears on the box again maybe I'll give it another go.
Image
<<

photek

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 100

Joined: Fri Jul 08, 2005 12:03 pm

Post Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:27 am

nominated for an Oscar and won the British Society of Cinematographers award. yeah, no spinners or blasters, but hey, we're not trying to compare this to the greatest film of all-time here. sometimes a good old-fashioned tale is fun too. this is in my humble opinion, a great film. the Tangerine Dream soundtrack is quite a plus ... not to mention a gorgeous Mia Sara.
FOUR LEGS GOOD, TWO LEGS BAD
- George Orwell
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:27 am

what he said exactly, and Tim Curry too :). It is a bit cheesy but not much worse than any other fantasy films at the time.
Image
<<

maledoro

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 47

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:32 am

Location: Pleasuredome 69; Dystopia 23

Post Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:20 pm

photek wrote:nominated for an Oscar

Wow. The same Academy that had nominated and awarded Marisa Tomei for Best Actress.

Image
Image
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:31 pm

maybe someday my tastes will be as refined as yours maledoro ;)
Image
<<

maledoro

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 47

Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 5:32 am

Location: Pleasuredome 69; Dystopia 23

Post Sat Oct 27, 2007 1:49 pm

ridleynoir wrote:maybe someday my tastes will be as refined as yours maledoro ;)

*mal sporting a snooty look*

Let us all hope so...
Image
Image
<<

Deckard

User avatar

Senior Rep Detector
Senior Rep Detector

Posts: 176

Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2007 1:23 pm

Location: Virginia

Post Fri Nov 16, 2007 2:53 pm

I really like Deckard as a human much better. It lends itself to a deeper tangle of emotions, his guilt over having feelings for Rachel. He worries if he will die tracking his bounty. That is exactly why it strikes a chord with so many . . . even the replicants are reflective about their own mortality, as ultimately we all are or will be.

I have always found Blade Runner to be am incredibly deep, thought-provoking film about the slow erosion of the human condition. We even see the technology stepping up and evolving their own emotions when the humans in the story prefer to let theirs fall away.

Somewhere in the middle we meet on common ground, Replicant or human . . . jaded or naive.

There were humans with the aching pain of emotions they didn't want, and Replicants with the painful ache for emotions they didn't have.

IMHO, in his final act, Roy definitely achieves the "More Human Than Human" motto of the Tyrell Corp by saving Deckard's life, by valuing any life over certain death. In his last moments, he became far more human than most humans ever achieve. Love life, all life, any life and preserve it.

This is magnified and marveled at moreso by Deckard being human, I think.
Deckard

"They don't advertise for killers in the newspaper. That was my profession: ex-cop, ex-BladeRunner, ex-killer."
<<

Ambiguous

User avatar

Rookie Rep Detect
Rookie Rep Detect

Posts: 28

Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 8:13 am

Post Sun Mar 27, 2011 3:08 pm

Re: I sympathize...or is it empathize?

Three and a half years later...............

The Abyss Gazes Also wrote:Ford played the character as world-weary, hard-drinking and melancholic and, while I know this could be explained by extensive memory implants in a Replicant, I prefer to think he got that way "naturally".


I think the revelation that this character who appears, as you described, "world-weary," is actually a replicant is an appropriate twist for the story that asks what it means to be human.

As an audience, we have bought into the character as being human, like us. He's one person we can connect with on some level in the middle of a world that seems very alien to us. But then we discover that this person we connected with is actually a replicant.

For some audiences, I imagine that revelation changes their entire perception of how they feel about Deckard: The connection they felt is severed.
And for others, it makes very little difference: He still is who we always thought he was, we were just wrong about his origin.

The last few shots reveal that Deckard is a replicant...and that's it. How much that matters is left open for discussion.
Previous

Return to Deckard - Human or Replicant?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 0 guests

cron