Comments

  • I don't like Ridley's "Decakrd-as-replicant" meme (not in Phil Dick's book)

    I'm glad many folks don't make the connection with the unicorn origami unless it's explained. (fail)

    They didn't need the sequel, even if I do like that director (Denis)

    i.imgur.comView Full Size
  • What a strange way to word things, subby.

    28 years from today will be the 28th birthday of someone born today!

    That's true literally every day
  • NateAsbestos: What a strange way to word things, subby.

    28 years from today will be the 28th birthday of someone born today!

    That's true literally every day


    . . . And will be the year 2049, like in the title of the sequel.

    /Not subby
  • Thanks for spoiling the new blade runner for me.
  • gbv23: I don't like Ridley's "Decakrd-as-replicant" meme (not in Phil Dick's book)


    Well, I mean, there's a moment in the book when the androids try to convince him he's an android. That's a cool scene. They arrest him, take him to a fake police station, and fark with his head.

    Anyway, you have to just accept that BR is not DADoES. It takes place in an entirely different world. Rick Deckard lives in Los Angeles, not San Francisco. He's not married to Iran Deckard in BR. There's no J.S. Isidore but there is a J.S. Sebastian (and he doesn't work for a robot animal hospital like Isidore). There's no Eldon & Rachel Rosen but there is an Eldon and Rachel Tyrell. There's no Irmgard & Roy Baty, but there is a Roy Batty. There's no Luba Luft at all. There's no Mercerism. No Buster Friendly and his Friendly Friends. No pressure from society to raise an animal.

    They took the bare bones of Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep, scraped away half of that, and then wrote an 80% original story using some very loose concepts from the original, but in a different setting, with different characters, and none of the socio-political overtones of the original.

    So you have to just like them as different stories by different authors. Period. Don't think of Blade Runner as a movie version of DADoES. Think of Blade Runner as an original movie that borrows one or two ideas from DADoES but then goes off and does its own thing.
  • Roy Batty, incept date, 2016

    Fark user imageView Full Size

    Rutger Hauer, RIP, 2019

    Fark user imageView Full Size


    Four year lifespan. You can't explain that!
  • WilderKWight: Well, I mean, there's a moment in the book when the androids try to convince him he's an android. That's a cool scene. They arrest him, take him to a fake police station, and fark with his head.


    The Blade Runner game from Westwood picks up some of these other ideas in their own story.
  • gbv23: I don't like Ridley's "Decakrd-as-replicant" meme (not in Phil Dick's book)


    Isn't it a short story? There was not enough for a movie.

    And it's been a couple of decades, but I recall Man in the High Castle was a very thin novel. I was thrilled with how the TV show expanded on it.

    / Loved, loved Blade Runner & Blade Runner 2049 & Man in the High Castle
    // And generally I hate movies & TV
  • gbv23: I don't like Ridley's "Decakrd-as-replicant" meme (not in Phil Dick's book)

    I'm glad many folks don't make the connection with the unicorn origami unless it's explained. (fail)

    They didn't need the sequel, even if I do like that director (Denis)

    [i.imgur.com image 579x407]


    It's nice as a thing to ponder but it really undermines the work if Deckard is a replicant, the idea that the Replicants are more human than human and the humans are becoming less empathetic. That also connects nicely with the Mood Organ and Mercerism in the book, that people have to find ways to force themselves to feel.
  • jaytkay: gbv23: I don't like Ridley's "Decakrd-as-replicant" meme (not in Phil Dick's book)

    Isn't it a short story? There was not enough for a movie.

    And it's been a couple of decades, but I recall Man in the High Castle was a very thin novel. I was thrilled with how the TV show expanded on it.

    / Loved, loved Blade Runner & Blade Runner 2049 & Man in the High Castle
    // And generally I hate movies & TV


    Blade Runner was based on a full novel ("Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?")  And one of PKD's best, although I happen to be partial to the VALIS novels.

    But I see Phil's work as a different thing from the movies based on his work and on that basis I can love Blade Runner without caring about what got left out.
  • the birth date of the miracle replicant messiah baby conceived by Nexus-7 replicant Rachael and Blade Runner Rick Deckard (who is also probably a replicant).

    Which would be some Lucas-level, character destroying BUUUUUUULLL SH*T
  • gbv23: I don't like Ridley's "Decakrd-as-replicant" meme (not in Phil Dick's book)


    There is very little of "Electric Sheep" in "Blade Runner."  Some names, and super high level themes, and that's about it.
  • That sequel was a waste of time.

    They can have all the special effects in the world but if the main character is as dull as a thing that's really dull that's so dull I can't even remember the name of it, but trust me it was really dull, then your movie is going to be ... I'm looking for a word that's not "dull" but means the same thing.
  • I enjoyed this bit from a podcast a couple of years back:

    "2019 is both the 20th anniversary of 'The Matrix' and the year in which 'Blade Runner' is fictionally set.  It is almost certain that theme-parties will be held at which these two films are shown back to back, in between conversation dominated by complaint that no girls have shown up."
  • nigeman: That sequel was a waste of time.

    They can have all the special effects in the world but if the main character is as dull as a thing that's really dull that's so dull I can't even remember the name of it, but trust me it was really dull, then your movie is going to be ... I'm looking for a word that's not "dull" but means the same thing.


    I too was disappointed with the sequel.  It was at times visually stunning, but that's about the only positive thing I can say about it.
  • Fark user imageView Full Size


    Silly Subby, it won't be the 6th of October for a few months yet!
  • If anything, I think BR2049 erases the idea that Deckard is a replicant. The child is a hybrid, and that's the threat.

    Besides, if Deckard were a replicant they wouldn't just offer to remake Rachel for him; They'd offer to renew his body as well, or improve his abilities, or something of that nature. But instead, they approach him as if he's human. He's aging, he's weaker than he used to be, he's capable of fathering a child. He's human.

    Ridley Scott can have his own ideas, but the scripts and what's acted out on screen points solidly away from the possibility of Deckard being anything other than human.
  • nigeman: That sequel was a waste of time.

    They can have all the special effects in the world but if the main character is as dull as a thing that's really dull that's so dull I can't even remember the name of it, but trust me it was really dull, then your movie is going to be ... I'm looking for a word that's not "dull" but means the same thing.


    Meh, I thought it was pretty damn good.
  • mattj1984: Thanks for spoiling the new blade runner for me.


    Is your life ruined?
  •  

This thread is closed to new comments.