Blade Runner: Final Cut

[Hikuro]

k, so i aw dangerous days and the final cut...lots of great ideas that were floating round that made me research and saw some of the novels...but Im confused now. are replicants clones, or are they machines? It reminds me heavily on Armitage the third which i know is just the anime esque of blade runner. but in that they were both machine and human organic....

so...whats a replicant?

[JsARCLIGHT]

A replicant in the Blade Runner movie lore is a genetically engineered being, they are living tissue. If you consider a "clone" to be duplicate of some genetic pattern then I suppose they also can be classified as clones because they are built from "plans". The "trick" is that while they are genetically engineered, they more closely resemble machines in that they are "designed", "built" and "programmed"... but it's all done with genes and cells rather than metal and wires. Once they are "built" they run out their programmed set of instructions and their life cycle and cannot be changed, because at that point they are sort of "hard wired" into being what they are (see the short back and forth between Tyrell and Batty about gene therapy to correct the incept date).

Dangerous Days shows a lot of pre concept work that depicts the replicants as mechanical, but the final "movie version" of them are genetic.

Edit: it should probably also be pointed out that PK Dick's book calls them Androids and not Replicants. Replicant is a term created in Blade Runner because Ridley Scott wanted something more ambiguous, something that would create doubt about "what is human".

[Ginrai]

If you read Future Noir and other Blade Runner poo Ridley Scott didn't want the word android used because it had been run into the ground and misused by other movies like Star Wars. THAT is why he wanted a new word.

[Vermillion21]

Finally got and watched this on DVD. I got the 4-disc edition. Simply AMAZING. I can't believe the picture quality ... and the Dangerous Days documentary was awesome!! I had no idea there were all these different plotline ideas that kept changing!!! Awesome DVD.

[Hikuro]

It would be nice if we got to see something almost Animatrix esque for Blade Runner, with lil Blade Runner side stories that were inspired by the twists and turns that the plotline had to take away. Like Deckard in the early days.

[yellowlightman]

Almost as awesome as that Citizen Kane prequel I've been hoping for.

Edit: And Deckard is a replicant, so their probably aren't any "early days."

Edited February 25, 2008 by yellowlightman

[Duke Togo]

Edit: And Deckard is a replicant, so their probably aren't any "early days."

So says Ridley Scott, but it was never the intention of the script writer for him to be so, and Harrinson Ford doesn't see him as one. Not only that, him being a Replicant totally ruins what this movie is about, a guy who has forgotten what its like to really live, to be human, who in the end comes to rediscover his humanity through people who are not human at all.

His character works because, in the end, they are both searching for the same thing, and only through them can he find it. That's what makes the movie so powerful. Otherwise its just a sci-fi action flick with a cliched plot twist.

[Steve68]

Yeah, Ridley Scott is the only one that thinks Deckard is a replicant and certainly nothing about his character would suggest he is anything but a regular human. No super abilities etc. I've got the 5 disc HD-DVD set and it is indeed incredible looking, but as Duke said Deckard being a replicant undermines the entire sub plot.

[electric indigo]

Given the recent trend in SF movie making, I wouldn't totally exclude a "Young Deckard" TV series in the next years.

Edited February 26, 2008 by electric indigo

[Vermillion21]

The whole make a prequel concept as sequels to ideas is getting lame IMHO ....

[Duke Togo]

Yeah, Ridley Scott is the only one that thinks Deckard is a replicant and certainly nothing about his character would suggest he is anything but a regular human. No super abilities etc. I've got the 5 disc HD-DVD set and it is indeed incredible looking, but as Duke said Deckard being a replicant undermines the entire sub plot.

I mean, here's a guy who is dead inside. The demons from his years as a Blade Runner and living in that hell hole of a city totally drained any sense of life out of this guy. And it takes 2 Replicants, these synthetic beings he's supposed to be hunting and killing, to bring him back to life, so to speak. There is no story otherwise.

Ridley Scott just has his head up his backside on this one.

[eugimon]

I mean, here's a guy who is dead inside. The demons from his years as a Blade Runner and living in that hell hole of a city totally drained any sense of life out of this guy. And it takes 2 Replicants, these synthetic beings he's supposed to be hunting and killing, to bring him back to life, so to speak. There is no story otherwise.

Ridley Scott just has his head up his backside on this one.

I think you're totally off the mark on that one. The movie works both ways, if you take that he's a replicant the story goes that humanity has completely lost its soul and that the children of men, the replicants, are able to attain humanity, despite being synthetic. Deckard starts as just a tool of the humans but by being confronted with the moral ambiguities of his job and the relationship with rachael, comes to reject his predestined fate and chooses his own path... in a sense, rejecting the will of his "parents" and becoming his own person.

[JsARCLIGHT]

If my several years of English and literature classes taught me nothing, it's that you can see nearly anything you want to see in a work of art... it's only the college English professors who will say "WRONG!" to your interpretations. The old saying of "all you have is what you bring with you" works well for interpreting creative endeavors as people will see patterns in things akin to their own experience or world view. IMHO "what the creator is saying" is important but it kind of takes a back seat to "what the viewer perceives". All a creator can do is arrange the pieces, it's up to the viewer to interpret them. Some say that art fails when the viewer does not come to the same conclusion the creator intended, but I for one believe that art succeeds when multiple interpretations can be gained from the same creative endeavor.

In layman's terms, Blade Runner is what you yourself see despite the "creator's intent". To some, they see a human in a mechanical world, to others they see a machine becoming human. The ambiguity of the finer points of the story only make me like it more. I enjoy material that does not spell everything out with a heavy handed mallet or beat you over the head with the "creator's intent". The best stories in the world are the ones that involve the viewer by making them ask these questions, which in turn make them wonder about not just the movie but themselves and their world.

I can see how the story works on both angles, Deckard as a human and as a replicant. I myself lean towards the human angle simply because I feel his character is more sympathetic when viewed as a human regaining his humanity. A machine that "breaks it's programming" and becomes human is not epic, because it doesn't imply recovery from failure, it implies "breaking bonds" or "freedom of choice". Whereas a man who lost his humanity and regains it is far more compelling and fits the archetype of the "epic hero" ala Gilgamesh or Dante which IMHO is the soul of "human"... to rise, then fall, only to rise again. Deckard as a replicant implies no fall, only a rise... a simple character evolution. Whereas Deckard as a human lets us see him at his "lowest", implying he had a previous "glory" from which he fell, only to watch him rise in the course of the story. That in my opinion is more compelling.

[eugimon]

I agree that Deckard as a human makes for a more compelling story. But deckard as a replicant also has an interesting redemption storyline in the character of Gaff.

If Deckard is a human, then Gaff is little more than an enforcer or a babysitter keeping tabs on Deckard for Bryant, but if Deckard is a replicant than Gaff himself is able to see the humanity in replicants and becomes a far more interesting character.

[JsARCLIGHT]

But in order to be redeemed one has to have fallen to begin with. IMHO the character of Gaff is one dimensional, he is pretty much a "front office cop" who is more concerned about attire and attitude than solid police work. In cut materials and briefly mentioned in the new cut he has his eyes on a promotion. I have always seen Gaff as a manipulator who himself is being manipulated. He has no practical skills other than dressing snappy and being a loyal errand boy, yet he thinks he deserves so much more without actually possessing the abilities or skills to achieve it. If Gaff was a competent investigator or Blade Runner, Bryant would never have needed to call Deckard back in. Instead Gaff is what he is, Bryant's "bitch".

Also, Gaff's actions can be seen two different ways. As before, everything can be interpreted differently. Gaff returning Deckard's gun to him, his comments of "too bad she won't live" and his origami unicorn can mean two different things. On one hand they can mean "I know and I let you both live" or they could mean "Finish the job or I will". It's that lovely ambiguity again. I guess I have never seen Gaff as a sympathetic character, I've always seen him as an embodiment of human greed, undue opulence and ambition without effort. A man obsessed with his rank and believing his position should afford him status above others.

[eugimon]

But in order to be redeemed one has to have fallen to begin with. IMHO the character of Gaff is one dimensional, he is pretty much a "front office cop" who is more concerned about attire and attitude than solid police work. In cut materials and briefly mentioned in the new cut he has his eyes on a promotion. I have always seen Gaff as a manipulator who himself is being manipulated. He has no practical skills other than dressing snappy and being a loyal errand boy, yet he thinks he deserves so much more without actually possessing the abilities or skills to achieve it. If Gaff was a competent investigator or Blade Runner, Bryant would never have needed to call Deckard back in. Instead Gaff is what he is, Bryant's "bitch".

Also, Gaff's actions can be seen two different ways. As before, everything can be interpreted differently. Gaff returning Deckard's gun to him, his comments of "too bad she won't live" and his origami unicorn can mean two different things. On one hand they can mean "I know and I let you both live" or they could mean "Finish the job or I will". It's that lovely ambiguity again. I guess I have never seen Gaff as a sympathetic character, I've always seen him as an embodiment of human greed, undue opulence and ambition without effort. A man obsessed with his rank and believing his position should afford him status above others.

Well, i never said Gaff was a sympathetic character, just a more interesting one if we assume deckard to be a replicant. But yeah, your view of the character is pretty much how i see him as well. His final comment can not only be interpreted as apathy or threat but also as an impetus to deckard "go seize your life/dreams".

[Duke Togo]

The Unicorn to me always meant that Gaff had been there, he knows she is there, and he's let her live. He's basically telling Deckard he's free to go.

[Vermillion21]

This was my take on the ending too ....

[Steve68]

I think Gaff's unicorn has a couple of meanings. The obvious one that Gaff had been to Deckard's place and the second more subtle that Rachel is the unicorn, meaning a mythical beast. Remember only Deckard and Tyrell knew of Rachael's incept date and she would live well beyond a normal replicant's 4 year life span. Gaff didn't know of this and so the unicorn was meant to represent something that Deckard could never have.

I had always thought that Gaff was a former blade runner, that was injured (he uses a cane) and is now a desk jockey. It sort of gives you a little more sympathy towards him.

Having Deckard be a replicant leaves way too many plot holes. One is his normal human abilities. No super strength or anything. Second, how would/could he have been a blade runner and nobody (as in other blade runners) ever found out that he was a replicant?

Edited February 28, 2008 by Steve68

[Duke Togo]

I think Gaff's unicorn has a couple of meanings. The obvious one that Gaff had been to Deckard's place and the second more subtle that Rachel is the unicorn, meaning a mythical beast. Remember only Deckard and Tyrell knew of Rachael's incept date and she would live well beyond a normal replicant's 4 year life span. Gaff didn't know of this and so the unicorn was meant to represent something that Deckard could never have.

Of unicorns, Leonardo DiVinci said, "The unicorn, through its intemperance and not knowing how to control itself, for the love it bears to fair maidens forgets its ferocity and wildness; and laying aside all fear it will go up to a seated damsel and go to sleep in her lap, and thus the hunters take it."

It's symbolic meaning in the film isn't anywhere near as clear as the chicken and the, uh, erect man.

[JsARCLIGHT]

That fits with the line that Gaff uses his origami to taunt or rebuke Deckard. In previous scenes he folds a "chicken" when Deckard is hesitant to rejoin the Blade Runner unit and he folds a "little man with a boner" after Deckard meets Rachel, as they search Leon's apartment. In that vein the unicorn origami is the final piece, but does it say that Rachel is the unicorn or Deckard? After all, the two previous origami uses reflected Deckard, why wouldn't the last one as well?

Which then raises the ugly question of the unicorn dream... Which can be taken two ways, literally and figuratively. Does Deckard indeed dream of a literal unicorn running through a forest, implying some kind of implanted memory or dream of which others are aware (making him a replicant)? Or is his dream simply a manifestation of his own personal insecurity, feelings of "being different or unique" or his personalization of the emotions and feelings of the replicants he himself is "hunting to extinction"? Gaff's use of a unicorn as his final origami in the literal sense can be seen as him saying "I know your dreams", hence introducing the question of Deckard being a replicant. But if Gaff's unicorn is a figurative symbol, like his previous uses of origami and like Deckard's figurative dream, then it can be taken as a statement of how Deckard is "the last of his kind" and will be hunted like the mythical unicorn, placing Deckard in the role of his dream. I tend to believe the latter because our dreams are nebulous in nature and rarely do we dream in literal instances. We instead dream in emotions and feelings that our mind gives figurative shape to. For all we know Gaff's use of the unicorn was coincidental to Deckard's dream. He could have folded a manticore or a griffon, but few people would probably recognize those or associate the mythical symbolism as the ubiquitous unicorn.

[Duke Togo]

Here is a take: Rachel is the unicorn who let down her guard, having fallen asleep in Deckard's "lap", thus allowing Gaff, the hunter, to make his move. However, he let her live, and he let Deckard leave.

Edited February 28, 2008 by Duke Togo

[eugimon]

I think Gaff's unicorn has a couple of meanings. The obvious one that Gaff had been to Deckard's place and the second more subtle that Rachel is the unicorn, meaning a mythical beast. Remember only Deckard and Tyrell knew of Rachael's incept date and she would live well beyond a normal replicant's 4 year life span. Gaff didn't know of this and so the unicorn was meant to represent something that Deckard could never have.

I had always thought that Gaff was a former blade runner, that was injured (he uses a cane) and is now a desk jockey. It sort of gives you a little more sympathy towards him.

Having Deckard be a replicant leaves way too many plot holes. One is his normal human abilities. No super strength or anything. Second, how would/could he have been a blade runner and nobody (as in other blade runners) ever found out that he was a replicant?

deckard was supposed to have been a legendary blade runner. Perhaps his "super ability" was his ability to detect replicants? As for why no one else knew he was a replicant, everyone knows he's a replicant but him. That's the whole point of the unicorn idea.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Not to sound like a tool or anything but how hard can it be to "detect replicants" when he is shown photos of all of them right off the bat? I mean, Deckard knows who is going after, knows what they look like and knows how to kill them. It seems to me his "super skill" is that he's quick, meaning he has good reflexes and instincts that allow him to kill them before they kill him... which he barely manages to do in every encounter, showing that his "quickness" is human and inferior to the Nexus series. In all actuality he lucks out of almost every replicant kill. He doesn't get strangled by Zhora because someone else enters the room, Leon pretty much has him at his mercy until Rachel intervenes, Priss beats the tar out of him before she makes the mistake of putting distance between herself and a guy with a gun and Roy pretty much hands Deckard his ass and is basically toying with him with the (eventual) intention of not killing him but making him "live in fear".

Deckard seems to me to be an above average human who is good at tracking and killing replicants out of nothing better than luck coupled with his own tenacity. If we take other things into consideration, Gaff walks with a limp which as others have pointed out possibly came from an injury on duty, which implies a replicant got the better of him... and Leon got the better of Holden. My take on all that is that all the Blade Runners are human and their human strength and skill pales against the replicants, except that the humans have better luck (in Deckard's case). Which possibly stands to reason why there are so few Blade Runners seen in the movie... perhaps "Blade Runner" is an occupational hazard like human mine detector and only the lucky survive. Which may place a big reason why Deckard left... having a job like that would give anyone "the shakes".

[eugimon]

Not to sound like a tool or anything but how hard can it be to "detect replicants" when he is shown photos of all of them right off the bat? I mean, Deckard knows who is going after, knows what they look like and knows how to kill them. It seems to me his "super skill" is that he's quick, meaning he has good reflexes and instincts that allow him to kill them before they kill him... which he barely manages to do in every encounter, showing that his "quickness" is human and inferior to the Nexus series. In all actuality he lucks out of almost every replicant kill. He doesn't get strangled by Zhora because someone else enters the room, Leon pretty much has him at his mercy until Rachel intervenes, Priss beats the tar out of him before she makes the mistake of putting distance between herself and a guy with a gun and Roy pretty much hands Deckard his ass and is basically toying with him with the (eventual) intention of not killing him but making him "live in fear".

Deckard seems to me to be an above average human who is good at tracking and killing replicants out of nothing better than luck coupled with his own tenacity. If we take other things into consideration, Gaff walks with a limp which as others have pointed out possibly came from an injury on duty, which implies a replicant got the better of him... and Leon got the better of Holden. My take on all that is that all the Blade Runners are human and their human strength and skill pales against the replicants, except that the humans have better luck (in Deckard's case). Which possibly stands to reason why there are so few Blade Runners seen in the movie... perhaps "Blade Runner" is an occupational hazard like human mine detector and only the lucky survive. Which may place a big reason why Deckard left... having a job like that would give anyone "the shakes".

Well, those were special right? In that they were known replicants who escaped their serivce. But if every replicant hunt was like them, what's the point of the empathy test? I would have to imagine that the blade runners don't always have a dossier on the replicant in advance.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Well if all replicants are manufactured products, I'd expect all of them to have the same "data cards" that the four in the movie had. Kind of like serial numbers on a car. And when a replicant goes rogue I'd think they'd know which one went rogue fairly easily. I've always looked at the Voigt Kampf test more as an excuse to "sell" the concept of replicants in the story rather than as a feasible tool.

The only time I'd think the VK machine would prove it's worth was if say you had a bunch of illegal replicants... replicants made with no authorization or record. Or if you had replicants who escape then somehow have massive plastic surgery to completely replace their faces. Either way the movie has plot holes you could drive a truck through... I mean if Tyrell kept records of their product which included photos you'd think someone would notice a "Leon" model applying for a job in waste management. I mean, that would be like a Ford Taurus driving up to a Ford plant and applying for a job. Aren't you a Ford Taurus? No, you must have me confused with someone else.

[Steve68]

I can't remember the exact words off hand, but at the beginning of the movie there is a little background given about replicants and how they came about. Prior to some point replicants were in fact legal on Earth, but after some murders were made illegal. I would imagine at that point the VK test came out to help the blade runners find and "retire" the replicants that were still on earth.

As for the the unicorn dream, I prefer to think about that scene in its original context (on the cutting room floor) which is where it belongs. It wasn't in the original US theatrical release and it shouldn't have been in the rerelease in the 90's either. Again Ridley Scott trying to force his 'wouldn't it be cool if Deckard was a replicant' crap on everyone.

I'm getting pretty sick of directors recreating their films with little additions like that. Han Solo's head bob, Greedo shooting first in Star Wars, all the FBI agents guns being replaced by walkie talkies in E.T. WTF?!?!?

[electric indigo]

So you thought the Collector's Edition was the end of all things Blade Runner? Make Room for the Anniversary Collector's Edition:

[Mr March]

Very nice. I'm not sure if I'll take the plunge. Now that I already have the 5-disc blu-ray, I'm thinking they need to get to 4k resolution before I upgrade again.

[Hikuro]

Hmmmmmm........I dunno. I only got the DVD variant since I couldn't do bluray back then. I'll wait and see.

[EXO]

They should put their efforts into getting Hot Toys to make Blade Runner figures. Decker, Rachel, Roy and Priss.

[RD Blade]

I'm OK with my HD-DVD set. Although I am bummed that it didn't come with the flying car.

[EXO]

Ridley's brother Tony jumped to his death... WTF.

[RD Blade]

WTF indeed. He was a great talent and will be missed.

[Major Tom]

Blade Runner's Deckard Sedan is out with a bonus "Blaster" for first edition:

http://www.hlj.com/product/FUJ09135