KH Martin Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Certainly the book traffics in classic existential Dickian paranoia for a moment when Deckard and his partner wonder if they are androids too after they run into a police station populated secretly by androids. That's just one of many scenes in the novel that make me still think -- heretical though the notion may seem to most --you could make a very faithful adaptation of the book that wouldn't owe much to Scott at all. I've seen the movie 50 or 60 times (have watched the city overflights maybe 1000 times by now, practically wore out the laserdisc), but I've reread the novel every couple of years as well, and I still think they threw away a lot of terrific ideas (and you also got the lame stuff, like Scott being overliteral-minded and misunderstanding a writer's voiceover, which got him going with the whole 'Deckard is a replicant, how HEAVY METAL is that?' notion and cramming it into a form that didn't really comfortably contain it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Holland Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 Look at Roger Deakins website where he says he did not use the 65 ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted December 23, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted December 23, 2016 Look at Roger Deakins website where he says he did not use the 65 ! The only thing I found on there was from mid 2015, which was WAY before they started production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted December 23, 2016 Share Posted December 23, 2016 (edited) I found this in about 10 seconds... Roger Deakins, one day ago on his forum..."We did not use the Alexa 65 and we finished shooting about four weeks ago" See..http://rogerdeakins.com/film-talk/blade-runner-teaser/ page down about once... Why be such a hard ass Tyler ? Edited December 23, 2016 by Gregg MacPherson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted December 24, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted December 24, 2016 Why be such a hard ass Tyler ? Arri advertised as being shot on the Alexa 65. IMDB and Shot on what.com both say Alexa 65. Plus, Rogers own forum, doesn't mention what you found. I didn't know about Roger Deakins dot com, never heard of it. I always go to deakinsonline.com Not being a hard-ass, I google searched and came up with nothing. You found the only evidence and it kinda shows something is amiss. Maybe the 2nd unit shot Alexa 65? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted December 24, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted December 24, 2016 I don't know how it can be any more explicit than Roger Deakins himself posting on his own site "We did not use the Alexa 65 and we finished shooting about four weeks ago." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 I didn't know about Roger Deakins dot com, never heard of it. I always go to deakinsonline.com deakinsonline is his old website. RogerDeakins.com is where the new forums are, and he did indeed reply to a question just 48hrs ago by stating that they did not use the Alexa 65 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Tyler Purcell Posted December 24, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted December 24, 2016 Yes, I'm in 100% agreement and NOT AT ALL arguing with you guys about it. I was just trying to understand why everyone is advertising Alexa 65. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stuart Brereton Posted December 24, 2016 Share Posted December 24, 2016 Most likely ARRI put out an inaccurate press release, IMDB copied it, and now it's gospel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KH Martin Posted December 25, 2016 Share Posted December 25, 2016 Why would anybody consider imdb to be gospel. Man, they used to have John Dykstra listed as a supervisor on 2001, and I think he would have been a sophomore in high school! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 I never considered that it was Deckard the Unicorn referred to. I always thought it was Rachael. She's a replicant with memories and therefore the experience to develop empathy. It would be something that Gaff would also know from an APB posted after she escapes. Even when he was dreaming in the special editions, it could represent how he finds Rachael unique and starts to fall in love with her. It always seemed pretty straight forward to me. But this is just my opinion. I'm gonna miss the anamorphic flares but I can't wait to see the world thru the eyes of Deakins. He's got the mood down pat as far as I can see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Drysdale Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 The only person dreaming about Unicorns is Deckard, Rachel has other memories,,,, But it's all up to the viewer in the end, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted December 28, 2016 Share Posted December 28, 2016 The only person dreaming about Unicorns is Deckard, Rachel has other memories,,,, But it's all up to the viewer in the end, I interpreted it that he was dreaming about her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted December 29, 2016 Share Posted December 29, 2016 I interpreted it that he was dreaming about her. But how does Gaff know about the dreams.. thats the crux.. no matter what they are about.. unless they are programed in .. in which case Deckard is a replicant .. and Gaff has access to his "files".. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted December 29, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted December 29, 2016 Well quite. The objection I keep hearing is that Deckard should have lived until no later than 2023, but it's completely reasonable to imagine Tyrell building a longer-lived version to see what he could get away with. We know that the four-year lifespan was deliberately introduced after there were problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted December 30, 2016 Share Posted December 30, 2016 Well quite. The objection I keep hearing is that Deckard should have lived until no later than 2023, but it's completely reasonable to imagine Tyrell building a longer-lived version to see what he could get away with. We know that the four-year lifespan was deliberately introduced after there were problems. Agree.. its sort of the point I guess..Deckard isn't you run of the mill rep.. so the humans don't know if he is or not.. nor does he.. its very much like dealing with gov workers today.. I think its already happened .. ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darrell Ayer Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 But how does Gaff know about the dreams.. thats the crux.. no matter what they are about.. unless they are programed in .. in which case Deckard is a replicant .. and Gaff has access to his "files".. Gaff doesn't know about the dreams. The fact that she's a unicorn because of her memories is what draws Deckard to her, and Gaff also understands how unique she is. It's just a symbol. This works with and without a the "dream", which i always thought it was added to drive the point home. This is why Gaff yells, "too bad she won't live." Gaff leaves the Unicorn to say that's why he didn't kill Rachael, because he understands how rare she is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Keith Walters Posted December 31, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted December 31, 2016 But how does Gaff know about the dreams.. thats the crux.. no matter what they are about.. unless they are programed in .. in which case Deckard is a replicant .. Not necessarily. Remember Deckard explaining to Rachel: "Those aren't your memories; they're from Tyrell's nieces..." Could the same technology not have been used to copy the memories from Deckard's brain, for some nefarious purpose? I was always expecting that the "Tyrell" who was killed by Roy Batty would turn out to be a replicant decoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin R Probyn Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 Yes could be.. I wonder if the question will addressed in the new one.. or just ignored.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted December 31, 2016 Premium Member Share Posted December 31, 2016 Of course all of this hypothesis highlights a concern that affects two Ridley films. If Blade Runner's replicants are made by "genetic designers," then they have genes, thus they have DNA, and with DNA describing a human being there's no reasonable argument that replicants in fact aren't human. The same issue exists with regard to the engineers of Prometheus, who I believe are described as having DNA identical to that of humans. In which case they, er, are human. Large, pale humans, certainly, but humans nonetheless. It's less diversity than exists between different populations on Earth. It's a more interesting question in terms of Blade Runner, since these are constructed beings, but ultimately it's a pretty daft storyline. What government could take synthesised-DNA humans and decide that summary execution of them was OK? Nobody would put up with it. Yes, it's the central conceit of that particular bit of sci fi, but it doesn't make much objective sense. P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KH Martin Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 I was always expecting that the "Tyrell" who was killed by Roy Batty would turn out to be a replicant decoy. That's a pretty good guess, there was an earlier script in which Tyrell is killed like the film, but then Batty says now take me to the real one, and you see that Tyrell was inadvertently killed previously and either kept on ice a la Disney or his consciousness transplanted into a dolphin. I think there are even storyboards for the latter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JD Hartman Posted December 31, 2016 Share Posted December 31, 2016 It's a more interesting question in terms of Blade Runner, since these are constructed beings, but ultimately it's a pretty daft storyline. What government could take synthesised-DNA humans and decide that summary execution of them was OK? Nobody would put up with it. Yes, it's the central conceit of that particular bit of sci fi, but it doesn't make much objective sense. P The same sort of government that uses prisoners for medical testing/experimentation today. Not so far fetched, they are simply constructed slave labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Igor Trajkovski Posted January 1, 2017 Share Posted January 1, 2017 (edited) That's a pretty good guess, there was an earlier script in which Tyrell is killed like the film, but then Batty says now take me to the real one, and you see that Tyrell was inadvertently killed previously and either kept on ice a la Disney or his consciousness transplanted into a dolphin. I think there are even storyboards for the latter. From the "Blade Runner Sketchbook": Those sketches by Syd Mead Edited January 1, 2017 by Igor Trajkovski Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gregg MacPherson Posted January 3, 2017 Share Posted January 3, 2017 Interesting short interview with Rutger Hauer 30 years after Blade Runner. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgcAbJ_cuQI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KH Martin Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 A promo short for a BLADE RUNNER fanfilm. Most of this looks pretty damned amazing to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now