Blade Runner – Final Cut, Decker NOT a Replicant.
HLNe...@yahoo.com
Well, we can all finally put THAT myth to rest.
When asked, Hampton Fancher stated that Deckard was not written as or
intended to be a Replicant.
It was also revealed that Tyrell in fact WAS intended to be a
Replicant (in one of the drafts) where, as Roy Batty is squeezing his
head, bolts, springs and pieces of machinery were supposed to come
popping out.
Roy Batty was then supposed to take the elevator up to the top floor
where the “real creator” is found, already dead for 4 years, and
laying in a sealed sarcophagus.
The funniest remark stated regarding this issue however was made by
Ridley Scott himself when asked if Deckard was a Replicant, Ridley
simply replied, “No. Unless there’s a sequel, then yes, he is” :-)
For anyone interested, it turns out that yes the producers, writers
and director do occasionally keep track of what is said in these news
groups and they find it particularly funny some of the things people
have made-up about this movie, including the famous “red-eye” scene,
where Harrison has just finished washing his face in the kitchen sink.
The “red-eye” glare was NOT intentional, nor was it an indication that
Deckard was a Replicant.
Also, they were well aware of the fact that Zora’s wig looked bad,
Bryant counted one-too-many escapees, and Harrison’s lips didn’t sync
up in Abdul Ben Hassan’s snake shop.
These, the narration voice over, the unicorn, the dove and many more
“flubs” are discussed and alleviated in the Final Cut bonus features.
Case closed.
PS
Many of the producers, and crew were divided on whether or not they
preferred the narration voice over. Certain scenes especially the
ending “driving through the country side” were particularly not well
liked by a majority of the crew.
I personally like the narration – voice over, only not at the end
after Roy’s death scene. I, like one of the main producers, like both
versions, depending on my mood. The VO has a very old fashioned film
nior effect, where the non-vo is more cerebral.
What they should have done was made the VO optional in the set-up
menu, just like any other DVD commentary. I’m surprised they didn’t do
that.
For any true fan of Blade Runner, the Final Cut is a MUST OWN DVD, if
only for the bonus features, “Dangerous Days – The making of Blade
Runner”. It’s a huge amount of insight and information into the
movie.
It is also interesting to note how much everyone has been able to
check their egos at the door after 26 years, (they all compliment each
other and looking back, surprisingly agree on a lot of previously
debated issues) and also how cutting edge this picture actually was at
the time. I know that’s been said a lot, and it’s hard to view the
technical achievements of a film like that objectively in today’s era,
but it really was and still is quite amazing.
TBerk
> For any true fan of Blade Runner, the Final Cut is a MUST OWN DVD, if
> only for the bonus features, “Dangerous Days – The making of Blade
> Runner”. It’s a huge amount of insight and information into the
> movie.
>
Yep yep. It's on my Christmas List but theses days 'I'm' Santa Claus.
Thx for this post.
TBerk
Dixon Hand
The Final Cut DVD sounds really cool, it's on my list too! Hey, you
should take a look at this pic of Denise Richards - sitting carelessly
in a way that displays her genitals:
http://notsafeforkids.com/?page_id=2089
Opry phantom
Ford *didn't* want to do the voice over; he was bored doing it, and
sounds every bit of it.
p.s. Woody (gasp!) resorts to VO in the "Barcelona" film
le...@my-deja.com
Woody Harrelson narrated a film about Barcelona? That's odd.
Flasherly
> Blade Runner – Final Cut, Decker NOT a Replicant.
>
> Well, we can all finally put THAT myth to rest.
>
> When asked, Hampton Fancher stated that Deckard was not written as or
> intended to be a Replicant.
>
> It was also revealed that Tyrell in fact WAS intended to be a
> Replicant (in one of the drafts) where, as Roy Batty is squeezing his
> head, bolts, springs and pieces of machinery were supposed to come
> popping out.
>
> Roy Batty was then supposed to take the elevator up to the top floor
> where the “real creator” is found, already dead for 4 years, and
> laying in a sealed sarcophagus.
At one juncture, there's an alternative scene that wasn't transposed,
of an entirely other precinct, posed and staffed with duplicate
Replicants to challenge Deckard's known existence and purpose, apart
from which he alludes or thinks to attend. Apart from level from the
home environment, adequate to the secular bleakness of the film
adaptation, allied in a social stasis of desirably deemed animalistic,
non-humanoid Replicants, more similar to a pet, actually, than a wife
disposed in life derived from mood-enhancement stimulus implants,
inclusive of all religiosity, as a device set beside to augment the
singularity of channelized television programming. Even though intent
foremost is to deny appearances of a non-corollary substance
Replicants impersonate -- denial being Deckard's job to annul such
existence into a state retirement connotes, with an expediated bullet,
justice axiomatically dispenses within an imposition of excesses
contrary to going "off world", where Replicants are intended -- a
phylum and sub-compartmentalisation of afflicted humanity,
nevertheless, remain within an incorporated fringe of society, eking
out existence, as best they're conceivably capable, as mentally-
deficient "ChickenHeads," whose resulting misfortune is an exigent
errancy of misshapen genetic coding ceded during the courses of war.
A challenge perhaps Dick faced prior to retiring from existence, when
transposing doors leading out of homes, from which he variously
serviced five or six wives, during a career of writing Science Fiction.
George Peatty
>Case closed.
Much ado about nothing ..
Lukas Mariman
"Alric Knebel" <al...@cableone.net> schreef in bericht
news:9edte4t6oc1usv709...@4ax.com...>>Blade Runner - Final Cut, Decker NOT a Replicant.
> but on the SD edition, I have the suitcase), and I watched "Dangerous
> Days," and I don't recall anything being said about Dekard not being a
> replicant.
People tend to hear only the things they *want* to hear.
Either that or we're just amusing some troll.
POD {Ò¿Ó}
with some fava beans and a nice chianti
> I have that 5-disc set (twice, actually; I had to upgrade to Blu-Ray,
> but on the SD edition, I have the suitcase), and I watched "Dangerous
> Days," and I don't recall anything being said about Dekard not being a
> replicant.
Don't feed the troll.
--
Thank you kindly
POD {Ò¿Ó}
¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸
Oh people, know that you have committed great sins.
If you ask me what proof I have for these words,
I say it is because I am the punishment of God.
If you had not committed great sins,
God would not have sent a punishment like me upon you.
¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸.·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·.¸
Lukas Mariman
"POD {铱觹" <DONT.EVE...@DEADSPAM.COM> schreef in bericht
news:Xns9B33E34E3...@195.188.240.200...
> Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net> once tried to test me. I ate their liver
> with some fava beans and a nice chianti
>
>> I have that 5-disc set (twice, actually; I had to upgrade to Blu-Ray,
>> but on the SD edition, I have the suitcase), and I watched "Dangerous
>> Days," and I don't recall anything being said about Dekard not being a
>> replicant.
>
> Don't feed the troll.
My sentiments exactly. Next!
jfuste
wrote:
> "POD {Ò¿Ó}" <DONT.EVEN.TRY...@DEADSPAM.COM> schreef in berichtnews:Xns9B33E34E3...@195.188.240.200...
>
> > Alric Knebel <al...@cableone.net> once tried to test me. I ate their liver
> > with some fava beans and a nice chianti
>
> >> I have that 5-disc set (twice, actually; I had to upgrade to Blu-Ray,
> >> but on the SD edition, I have the suitcase), and I watched "Dangerous
> >> Days," and I don't recall anything being said about Dekard not being a
> >> replicant.
>
> > Don't feed the troll.
>
> My sentiments exactly. Next!
I don't wanna feed nothing, no trolls at all, but the is an interview
with some (I cannot remember name) with a big spinner model, and he is
talking about Deckard as a human.
jfuste
MYBR
rick++
2) All the photos Decker keeps around his house
gives this away. Both Nexus 6s and 7s are unsure
of their implanted memories and keep photos for
comfort.
Al
> Blade Runner – Final Cut, Decker NOT a Replicant.
>
> Well, we can all finally put THAT myth to rest.
>
> When asked, Hampton Fancher stated that Deckard was not written as or
> intended to be a Replicant.
>
the film first came out about the film
did not have the Ridley Scott 'revisionist' idea of Deckard being an
android. A little later it came out that
Scott suggested to Ford this idea and Ford hated so much that Scott
never brought it up again.
I am glad to know that Fancher wanted to stick with Dick and novel (if
not the novel's story) and keep
Dick's contrast by not making Deckard and android.
> It was also revealed that Tyrell in fact WAS intended to be a
> Replicant (in one of the drafts) where, as Roy Batty is squeezing his
> head, bolts, springs and pieces of machinery were supposed to come
> popping out.
>
That is pretty goofy, replicants were supposed to be synthetic humans
(androids) not humanoid robots,
glad they did not use that idea.
>
> Many of the producers, and crew were divided on whether or not they
> preferred the narration voice over. Certain scenes especially the
> ending “driving through the country side” were particularly not well
> liked by a majority of the crew.
>
I have always heard that it was the studio that insisted on the voice
over
because the suits could not understand what was going on without being
spoon fed.
gggg gggg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Themes_in_Blade_Runner#Deckard:_human_or_replicant?