Spoilers Blade Runner/2049/Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?

[Huntn]

Brought over from Movie thread:

Bladerunner & BR 2049 Spoilers



Just finished it, still like it.
So:

• Is Deckard a replicant? No, as I recall an interview with the Director.
• Did Rachel live more than 4 years? She was an experimental model, although Tyrell just before he dies tells Roy Batty: we made you as best we could. If she had become pregnant near the end of this movie in Los Angeles 2019, by 2049, the daughter would have been just under 30.
• A powerful monologue: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tears_in_rain_monologue

I just read through the Wikipedia page and discovered the book "Tears in Rain (Bruna Husky)" and ordered it. It looks like it will be a good read.

Please report back. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15096204-tears-in-rain

Side note: Rutger Hauer passed away last summer.

Of possible interest this is one of the critical reviews of the movie:
Too bad the filmmakers didn't try to recapture the modest virtues of the Dick novel, which (despite many flaws of its own) has a humor and humanity that are nowhere felt in 'Blade Runner.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner

I do agree that the movie is divergent from the book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep). They are almost like 2 different stories in tone. Here is an analysis:

 

[SandboxGeneral]

Pretty good video.
I've also never read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" either. Its been on my list for a long time and I finally ordered that one too.

 

[Huntn]

Pretty good video.
I've also never read "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" either. Its been on my list for a long time and I finally ordered that one too.

They are quite different.

 

[Huntn]

Moved from Movie thread:

Or maybe not

Deckard was very much a replicant as was illustrated in the original BR when Gaff leaves the origami unicorn and BR 4049 when Wallace explains the set up between Deckard and Rachel. On the flip side I believe that Harrison Ford has always stated the opposite

Like many I think the question is the more interesting facet and the ambiguity of it all, however I believe the signs are there although subtle.

Q-6

Ok, we are not arguing. I acknowledge your sources. I think they have toyed with us over the years. However, Tyrell told Decard she was special, but Rachel could have died from childbirth within the 4 year time frame and 2049 still would have worked for her daughter, so that is unresolved. This would not explain how Deckard lived 30 years. I’m not sure how long the new post Tyrell replicants Live.

I think the unicorn dream and the unicorn left by his partner, might be a slam dunk argument that Deckard was a replicant, I think was also a tease with movie makers messing with the audiences.

This quote is also interesting because it is contradictory and in the Final Cut, where the director had control, he did not kill her, they flew the coup together:

Though it is never explicitly said in the movie, Ridley Scott has confirmed that Deckard was a replicant. He said in the Channel 4 documentary, On the Edge of Blade Runner, that "Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human." Screenwriter, Hampton Fancher, said in 1999 that he never wrote the blade runner as a replicant but in later drafts he toyed with the idea.

He was less human than the people he was after, because they were machines. He was more of a machine. And he becomes less of a machine through the ordeal of falling in love with [Rachael]. She's smarter than he is and she's better than he is, and at the end, he kills her. And it's not an outright execution. It's elliptical. But you hear the shot, and you see where it took place, and you saw her face, and she wanted it, and it was an act of love."

 

[Queen6]

Moved from Movie thread:

Ok, we are not arguing. I acknowledge your sources. I think they have toyed with us over the years. However, Tyrell told Decard she was special. Rachel could have died from childbirth within the 4 year time frame and 2049 still would have worked for her daughter, so that is unresolved. This would not explain how Deckard lived 30 years. I’m not sure how long the new post Tyrell replicants Live.

I think the unicorn dream and the unicorn left by his partner, might be a slam dunk argument that Deckard was a replicant, I think was also a tease with movie makers messing with the audiences.

This quote is also interesting because it is contradictory and in the Final Cut, where the director had control, he did not kill her, they flew the coup together:

Though it is never explicitly said in the movie, Ridley Scott has confirmed that Deckard was a replicant. He said in the Channel 4 documentary, On the Edge of Blade Runner, that "Deckard is a Nexus 7, he probably has an unknown life span and therefore is starting to get awfully human." Screenwriter, Hampton Fancher, said in 1999 that he never wrote the blade runner as a replicant but in later drafts he toyed with the idea.

He was less human than the people he was after, because they were machines. He was more of a machine. And he becomes less of a machine through the ordeal of falling in love with [Rachael]. She's smarter than he is and she's better than he is, and at the end, he kills her. And it's not an outright execution. It's elliptical. But you hear the shot, and you see where it took place, and you saw her face, and she wanted it, and it was an act of love."

No not at all, great to see others opinion on this subject for fans of the films It certainly raises a lot of deep questions and the most interesting aspect being "people really thinking and questioning" not just mindlessly watching, although that too has it's place

Naturally watch both films again, be rude not to The fore and against arguments interest as the more I watch Blade Runner, the more I think both apply

Q-6

 

[SandboxGeneral]

Huh. I never heard of Decard possibly being a replicant. I always interpreted the unicorn origami at the end, as Rachel steps on it, to mean that she was the unicorn. She was the special replicant that didn't have a builtin short lifespan.

 

[theluggage]

I do agree that the movie is divergent from the book (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep). They are almost like 2 different stories in tone. Here is an analysis:

PSA: Don't watch that if you are thinking about reading the book. Even if you've seen the film, it contains massive spoilers for the book.

I think a less spoiler-y summary is that the book is less about "is Deckard really a replicant?" and more about "is there really a difference?" and digs in to the artificiality of human life (esp. in the satirically exaggerated future described in the book).

There's lots of extra detail and inter-connection in the book that, for example, explains what the VK test is all about (and casts doubt on its objectivity). Plus, yes, actual electric sheep. OTOH, the iconic final "tears in rain" soliloquy was entirely a movie creation (and, apparently, mostly Rutger Hauer's invention) - and, as for the visuals and atmosphere of the film... well, what can you say?

By Blade Runner 2049 any remaining connection with the book has pretty much been lost.

I think its a huge irony that Philip K Dick has become possibly the most successful example of a SF writer's work being adapted to the screen because his work is so un-filmable that the filmmakers just cherry-pick a few choice themes and create an original screenplay around them. Now, "Inspired by a novel by Philip K Dick" is probably a big help to getting a movie/show green-lighted...

I actually think the original Total Recall and even Minority Report were better yarns than the source material - We Can Remember for you Wholesale is mainly a comedy and both are short stories that wouldn't stretch beyond 45 minutes.

I'll be interested to see how Asimov's Foundation survives the process - its an undisputed classic book, but its also 230 pages of rather stilted talking heads expositing while most of the action happens off-page - a literal transcription for the screen would be about as exciting as the opening text crawl of Phantom Menace (...suspiciously similar, in fact - Coruscant = Trantor, anyone?) Plus, the basic premise has been pretty much debunked by chaos theory etc.
[doublepost=1568720306][/doublepost]

Huh. I never heard of Decard possibly being a replicant. I always interpreted the unicorn origami at the end, as Rachel steps on it, to mean that she was the unicorn.

Trouble is, the original release of the film cut the earlier scene where Deckard dreams about the unicorn (...plus, if I recall correctly, pasted on the voice-over about her not having an expiry date) - so you can be forgiven for not getting it.

 

[Huntn]

Huh. I never heard of Decard possibly being a replicant. I always interpreted the unicorn origami at the end, as Rachel steps on it, to mean that she was the unicorn. She was the special replicant that didn't have a builtin short lifespan.

PSA: Don't watch that if you are thinking about reading the book. Even if you've seen the film, it contains massive spoilers for the book.

I think a less spoiler-y summary is that the book is less about "is Deckard really a replicant?" and more about "is there really a difference?" and digs in to the artificiality of human life (esp. in the satirically exaggerated future described in the book).

There's lots of extra detail and inter-connection in the book that, for example, explains what the VK test is all about (and casts doubt on its objectivity). Plus, yes, actual electric sheep. OTOH, the iconic final "tears in rain" soliloquy was entirely a movie creation (and, apparently, mostly Rutger Hauer's invention) - and, as for the visuals and atmosphere of the film... well, what can you say?

By Blade Runner 2049 any remaining connection with the book has pretty much been lost.

I think its a huge irony that Philip K Dick has become possibly the most successful example of a SF writer's work being adapted to the screen because his work is so un-filmable that the filmmakers just cherry-pick a few choice themes and create an original screenplay around them. Now, "Inspired by a novel by Philip K Dick" is probably a big help to getting a movie/show green-lighted...

I actually think the original Total Recall and even Minority Report were better yarns than the source material - We Can Remember for you Wholesale is mainly a comedy and both are short stories that wouldn't stretch beyond 45 minutes.

I'll be interested to see how Asimov's Foundation survives the process - its an undisputed classic book, but its also 230 pages of rather stilted talking heads expositing while most of the action happens off-page - a literal transcription for the screen would be about as exciting as the opening text crawl of Phantom Menace (...suspiciously similar, in fact - Coruscant = Trantor, anyone?) Plus, the basic premise has been pretty much debunked by chaos theory etc.
[doublepost=1568720306][/doublepost]

Trouble is, the original release of the film cut the earlier scene where Deckard dreams about the unicorn (...plus, if I recall correctly, pasted on the voice-over about her not having an expiry date) - so you can be forgiven for not getting it.

I still think of Deckard as a human being until it is explained how he came from the referenced time frame in the movie and not be limited by a 4 year life span. He was clearly no match physically against the Nexus 6s. So if replicant, what was he? Rachel was an experimental model (Nexus7? Maybe not, described as “special” by Tyrell) ) and we have no idea what she was capable of physically, plus we don’t know what her actual life span was because she died in childbirth 2021.

Scott may have been hot and cold on the idea of Deckard being a replicant, but I don’t trust his word after the fact based on what I witnessed in the movies The original Blade Runner Movie writer stated in an interview that he operated under the premise that Deckard was human. I can only assume this was with the concurrence of the Director.

Scott definitely planted a teaser, the unicorn dream in several versions of the original film to raise the possibility, but it is never definitively established so from what we can observe in the films, I’ll say human, that the speculation was allowed to drift in BR 2049, but I’m still open to the possibility Deckard was not human.

I think for this franchise, the story has moved on beyond Rachel and Deckard so it might not ever be firmly established, unless the next director goes out of his way to nail this down.

Posted only for interesting reading: https://screenrant.com/blade-runner-2049-rachael-deckard-daughter-backstory-explained/

 

[decafjava]

I am possibly interesting in reading the book, but in any case am a big fan of both films and am especially glad I was not let down by the sequel as so many others.

 

[D.T.]

I liked the sequel quite a bit, might even say loved it.

FWIW, I've spent the last few decades talking, writing (including some lengthy thesis papers), discussing the book, the movie (all flavors), more recently the sequel. Owned the original movie on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, BD, BD special edition The original PKD book was one of the first "serious scifi" works I read, when I was around 12 or so. I routinely list Blade Runner in my Top 5 films of all time.

 

[Huntn]

I am possibly interesting in reading the book, but in any case am a big fan of both films and am especially glad I was not let down by the sequel as so many others.

I liked the sequel quite a bit, might even say loved it.

FWIW, I've spent the last few decades talking, writing (including some lengthy thesis papers), discussing the book, the movie (all flavors), more recently the sequel. Owned the original movie on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD, BD, BD special edition The original PKD book was one of the first "serious scifi" works I read, when I was around 12 or so. I routinely list Blade Runner in my Top 5 films of all time.

I grew to love the sequel, it moved me. My initial impression was is this all there is? Clearly, I had an expectation problem, but I adjusted. It’s based on relationships, and a futuristic, artistic film noir, more than being an action film. I was really impressed with David Battista’s performance and was sad it was so brief. Jared Leto was sinister and megleomanically as Niander Wallace. The scene with the new born replicant was brutal. Ryan Gosling’s performance was impressively nuanced, the unspoken hope he had

Spoiler

he was born into this world

that was squashed, and I hoped we were not watching him die on the steps of the Upgrade Center.

 

[Huntn]

More stuff, I did not realize:
Will we see another Blade Runner? Maybe not. That makes me sad.
Blade Runner 2049 Hologram Fight Was Almost Cut
https://screenrant.com/blade-runner-204-hologram-fight-deleted-scenes/

Sadly, despite the strong reviews and levels of hype prior to release, the film wasn’t a success, so another sequel looks unlikely. Some blame the film’s performance on the marketing campaign, which was extremely vague on what the actual story of the movie was. Others also point to Blade Runner being more of a cult film than a tentpole, so a big-budget sequel was always going to struggle.

'Blade Runner 2049' Is A Box Office Bomb: 10 Reasons It Was Doomed
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...as-doomed-at-the-u-s-box-office/#1176104e24fb

 

[rhett7660]

I don't think the original Blade Runner did very well at the box office either. I want to say it gained most of it's following after it hit the home VHS market. Could be wrong though.

I dug 2049, but I didn't see it in the theater. Just didn't have the time when it came out. I did purchase it though and have watched it several times. Just like I have purchased, several times over, the original Blade Runner and all of the different cuts of the film.

 

[Queen6]

I don't think the original Blade Runner did very well at the box office either. I want to say it gained most of it's following after it hit the home VHS market. Could be wrong though.

I dug 2049, but I didn't see it in the theater. Just didn't have the time when it came out. I did purchase it though and have watched it several times. Just like I have purchased, several times over, the original Blade Runner and all of the different cuts of the film.

Both are superb films for those that enjoy the genre. Neither did well at the box office, however I believe similar to the first film BR 2049 will gain traction over time. I am admittedly biased being a fan of both, same as BR, BR 2049 grows on you the more you watch it.

Q-6

 

[Queen6]

More stuff, I did not realize:
Will we see another Blade Runner? Maybe not. That makes me sad.
Blade Runner 2049 Hologram Fight Was Almost Cut
https://screenrant.com/blade-runner-204-hologram-fight-deleted-scenes/

Sadly, despite the strong reviews and levels of hype prior to release, the film wasn’t a success, so another sequel looks unlikely. Some blame the film’s performance on the marketing campaign, which was extremely vague on what the actual story of the movie was. Others also point to Blade Runner being more of a cult film than a tentpole, so a big-budget sequel was always going to struggle.

'Blade Runner 2049' Is A Box Office Bomb: 10 Reasons It Was Doomed
https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottm...as-doomed-at-the-u-s-box-office/#1176104e24fb

Sadly I tend to agree, equally I most certainly don't want a watered down PG 13 mess. By far I prefer Blade Runner to go out on a high note and not be "milked" for all it's worth. Personally I never expected Blade Runner 2049 to be a blockbuster at the box office, what I will say is that Blade Runner 2049 met and exceeded my expectations.

So many brands are in the "bucket" now thanks to serving the vocal minority; Alien, Terminator, Starwars and the list goes on and on. Only thing that seems doomed is decent films aimed at the majority of adults, anyway my solution is simple I don't waste my time and money on the garbage

Q-6

 

[Huntn]

Sadly I tend to agree, equally I most certainly don't want a watered down PG 13 mess. By far I prefer Blade Runner to go out on a high note and not be "milked" for all it's worth. Personally I never expected Blade Runner 2049 to be a blockbuster at the box office, what I will say is that Blade Runner 2049 met and exceeded my expectations.

So many brands are in the "bucket" now thanks to serving the vocal minority; Alien, Terminator, Starwars and the list goes on and on. Only thing that seems doomed is decent films aimed at the majority of adults, anyway my solution is simple I don't waste my time and money on the garbage

Q-6

Bladerunner 2049 got an 87% critic/81% audience at Rotten Tomatoes (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner_2049) and an 8/10 at IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/) so most of people who went to see it, were satisfied with it. As I said for myself, it was not what I expected, but I digested it and recognized it’s story goodness and sadness, as I remember K screams when he realizes he is not the one. It is movie artistry of the highest degree, visually and narratively.

Now as far as those other big name franchises you mentioned (my evaluation), out of the 6 Alien movies, only 3 were worthy. For Terminator, I liked 4 of them including Christian Bale’s entry. Star Wars, beyond the original trilogy has been a huge frick’n blockbuster travesty except for Rogue One.

So I think we agree that box office does not equate to quality, with the sad effect of studios making movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator to increase sales. A good example of this are many of the Marvel Franchise movies that include obligatory action, but I still count many of them as excellent stories, but my point is, if they don’t have the requisite action, they may flop at the box office because this seems to be what is required to hold the attention of the masses. Am I sounding like an elitist snob?

 

[Queen6]

Bladerunner 2049 got an 87% critic/81% audience at Rotten Tomatoes (https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/blade_runner_2049) and an 8/10 at IMDB (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1856101/) so most of people who went to see it, were satisfied with it. As I said for myself, it was not what I expected, but I digested it and recognized it’s story goodness and sadness, as I remember K screams when he realizes he is not the one. It is movie artistry of the hugest degree, visually and narratively.

Now as far as those other big name franchises you mentioned (my evaluation), out of the 6 Alien movies, only 3 were worthy. For Terminator, I liked 4 of them including Christian Bale’s entry. Star Wars, beyond the original trilogy has been a huge frick’n blockbuster travesty except for Rogue One.

So I think we agree that box office does not equate to quality, with the sad effect of studios making movies that appeal to the lowest common denominator to increase sales. A good example of this are many of the Marvel Franchise movies that include obligatory action, but I still count many of them as excellent stories, but my point is, if they don’t have the requisite action, they may flop at the box office because this seems to be what is required to hold the attention of the masses. An I sounding like an elitist snob?

Well I'm watching Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker and planning to follow up with Andrzej Zulawski's Possession so I'm right on the fringe

Sadly vast majority of films that Hollywood is "churning out" now is mindless pap, if not complete garbage. Personally I simply choose not support such efforts. Similar to my taste in music my film collection is eclectic, although not always so complex to digest, such as the two former films.

Predator another end of ark; sometimes a good film is simply a good standalone film, that needs no follow up. Last one "The Predator" what a pile of rubbish, TBH they would have been far better off to remove the profanity and calm the violence and let the kids watch it as that's about all it's fit for - Lazy, incompetent, boring, illogical, dull and that's the best I can say...

Predator (1997) you feel invested and rooted for the characters, The Predator (2018) you simply want the characters to be killed off as fast as possible to alleviate one from the pain of watching such garbage. Admittedly Predator 2 has grown on me over the years, Predators (2010) is watchable, AVPR trash, AvP an action flick, but nothing special at all, extended version is a little better, equally neither should have been made as they only served to dilute both franchises.

This is also why I'm happy with Blade Runner 2049 as it didn't pander to the online "warriors" and the vocal minority, not the same impact as the original mind. Felt pretty faithful to the original with a new, yet interweaving ark...

Anyway Stalker harks from Russia so Stolichnaya is the order of the day, cheers

Q-6

 

[Huntn]

Well I'm watching Andrei Tarkovsky's Stalker and planning to follow up with Andrzej Zulawski's Possession so I'm right on the fringe

Sadly vast majority of films that Hollywood is "churning out" now is mindless pap, if not complete garbage. Personally I simply choose not support such efforts. Similar to my taste in music my film collection is eclectic, although not always so complex to digest, such as the two former films.

Predator another end of ark; sometimes a good film is simply a good standalone film, that needs no follow up. Last one "The Predator" what a pile of rubbish, TBH they would have been far better off to remove the profanity and calm the violence and let the kids watch it as that's about all it's fit for - Lazy, incompetent, boring, illogical, dull and that's the best I can say...

Predator (1997) you feel invested and rooted for the characters, The Predator (2018) you simply want the characters to be killed off as fast as possible to alleviate one from the pain of watching such garbage. Admittedly Predator 2 has grown on me over the years, Predators (2010) is watchable, AVPR trash, AvP an action flick, but nothing special at all, extended version is a little better, equally neither should have been made as they only served to dilute both franchises.

This is also why I'm happy with Blade Runner 2049 as it didn't pander to the online "warriors" and the vocal minority, not the same impact as the original mind. Felt pretty faithful to the original with a new, yet interweaving ark...

Anyway Stalker harks from Russia so Stolichnaya is the order of the day, cheers

Q-6

The original Predator with Ar-nold was awesome! Alien vs Predator, eh.

 

[rhett7660]

Predator (1997) you feel invested and rooted for the characters, The Predator (2018) you simply want the characters to be killed off as fast as possible to alleviate one from the pain of watching such garbage. Admittedly Predator 2 has grown on me over the years, Predators (2010) is watchable, AVPR trash, AvP an action flick, but nothing special at all, extended version is a little better, equally neither should have been made as they only served to dilute both franchises.

This is also why I'm happy with Blade Runner 2049 as it didn't pander to the online "warriors" and the vocal minority, not the same impact as the original mind. Felt pretty faithful to the original with a new, yet interweaving ark...

Anyway Stalker harks from Russia so Stolichnaya is the order of the day, cheers

Q-6

Agreed re: BR2049... The overall feel and tone of the film was on par with the original IMHO.

The Predator and Terminator franchises have for the most part been a wreck. To me, the first in the series have been the best. Predator 2 wasn't too bad, but I actually didn't like Terminator 2 at all, and the rest in the series have been way over the top. The next Terminator film looks just as bad. If you have to have two planes crashing into each other to push the story along, you lost me.

@Huntn I agree with the Star Wars comment. Rogue One is actually my favorite film of the franchise followed very closely by Star Wars and Empire. ROTJ went soft with the ewoks...

 

[Huntn]

Agreed re: BR2049... The overall feel and tone of the film was on par with the original IMHO.

The Predator and Terminator franchises have for the most part been a wreck. To me, the first in the series have been the best. Predator 2 wasn't too bad, but I actually didn't like Terminator 2 at all, and the rest in the series have been way over the top. The next Terminator film looks just as bad. If you have to have two planes crashing into each other to push the story along, you lost me.

@Huntn I agree with the Star Wars comment. Rogue One is actually my favorite film of the franchise followed very closely by Star Wars and Empire. ROTJ went soft with the ewoks...

We’ll have to disagree about Terminator 2 as I consider it just as good if not better than the original. T3 & 4 are watchable, but not great by any means.

 

[rhett7660]

We’ll have to disagree about Terminator 2 as I consider it just as good if not better than the original.

LOL... I hear yeah, a lot of folks think that way, just not me. Now if we are talking Alien and Aliens... I can agree on the second one getting a slight edge as being better than the first. But I didn't like Arnold turning into the good guy. I didn't like that.

 

[Huntn]

LOL... I hear yeah, a lot of folks think that way, just not me. Now if we are talking Alien and Aliens... I can agree on the second one getting a slight edge as being better than the first. But I didn't like Arnold turning into the good guy. I didn't like that.

Give him a break, he was captured and reprogrammed.

 

[decafjava]

Agreed re: BR2049... The overall feel and tone of the film was on par with the original IMHO.

The Predator and Terminator franchises have for the most part been a wreck. To me, the first in the series have been the best. Predator 2 wasn't too bad, but I actually didn't like Terminator 2 at all, and the rest in the series have been way over the top. The next Terminator film looks just as bad. If you have to have two planes crashing into each other to push the story along, you lost me.

@Huntn I agree with the Star Wars comment. Rogue One is actually my favorite film of the franchise followed very closely by Star Wars and Empire. ROTJ went soft with the ewoks...

True I agree with all except I liked ROTJ and ewoks are not soft vegans you know...

 

[rhett7660]

Give him a break, he was captured and reprogrammed.

?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️ LOL...
[automerge]1569511666[/automerge]

True I agree with all except I liked ROTJ and ewoks are not soft vegans you know...

I liked the battle scenes and of course Leia, but I could have done without the Ewoks lol.

 

[Huntn]

Brought over from the Movie thread:

Funny enough, John Alvin, the original poster artist wasn't happy with it either, in fact, he want back and did a revised edition in 2000

Nothing beats the unused Drew Struzan work (later re-issued as a limited edition print).

I did a search on BladeRunner posters and found several. I believe the first one is Struzan. That’s the illustration on my The Final Cut BluRay.

The second one is the revised Alvin work which is much better.

Struzan


Revised Alvin Illustration






​