Main Menu

It Shoulda Ended with...

Started by Link Prime, 13 August, 2019, 04:12:35 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

JayzusB.Christ

#120
I'm still not entirely convinced that Blade Runner needed a sequel.  The world-building was interesting but the storyline wasn't half as thought-provoking and concise as the original. Also wasn't entirely happy to see Harrison Ford [spoiler]growing old[/spoiler]; unless I've misremembered something that explains things, it kind of takes away from the question of his humanity or lack thereof.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

GrudgeJohnDeed

#121
Quote from: sheridan on 18 August, 2019, 07:53:17 PM
Not a fan of Leonardo di Caprio then?

:D as it happens, I'm actually not the biggest fan! He's fine.

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 18 August, 2019, 08:39:15 PMAlso wasn't entirely happy to see Harrison Ford [spoiler]growing old[/spoiler]; unless I've misremembered something that explains things, it kind of takes away from the question of his humanity or lack thereof.

Weren't the replicants biological and capable of [spoiler]growing old[/spoiler] if the designer so wished? I get confused on the rules of Bladerunner..

IndigoPrime

According to the film lore, the Replicants were [spoiler]essentially indistinguishable from humans, bar a few tiny anomalies, and the ageing thing was a failsafe that could be removed[/spoiler]. I don't recall how the book positioned things.

To my mind, Blade Runner falls between two camps. The sequel was unnecessary, but for me didn't impact negatively on the original. I suspect that third category exists for quite a few films. (There are relatively few, though, that with the sequel meaningfully improve the series as a whole. For every Mad Max, there are dozens of "why did you do thats".)

GrudgeJohnDeed

Yeah I got the impression that they [spoiler]aren't really androids in the robotics sense, they're living beings grown in labs from modified human DNA, and that makes the way they're used and treated even more horrifying. They're human slaves bred to be used like machines. I feel like a lot of other cyberpunk media inspired by Blade Runner takes the concept and makes them full-on stealth robots (like the videogame Snatcher). [/spoiler]

I loved the new one, it could've been trimmed in a couple of places but it was a great film overall.

JayzusB.Christ

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 19 August, 2019, 10:54:41 AM
According to the film lore, the Replicants were [spoiler]essentially indistinguishable from humans, bar a few tiny anomalies, and the ageing thing was a failsafe that could be removed[/spoiler]. I don't recall how the book positioned things.


Was that in the first film? It's been a while.  I would have thought that if that had been the case, the replicants' first priority would have been to find their maker and get the failsafe removed.  Or is that what they were doing? Like I said, it's been a while.

One for the 'things that went over your head' thread, but I recently realised how important the 'time to die' catchphrase was.  It wasn't just an Arnie-style tough-guy soundbite but the [spoiler]entire driving force in the mind of a rogue replicant. The only thing that spurred them on was the terrible knowledge of their impending time to die. [/spoiler]
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

Funt Solo

++SPOILER WARNING++

The need for the Voight-Kampff test was to distinguish a Nexus-6 replicant ("More human than human!") from a human being.

Roy Batty and his comrades were attempting to find out how to remove the failsafe, but ultimately discovered it was impossible.  Time to die.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

IndigoPrime

Yep. Removing it killed them.

JayzusB.Christ

Ah, I see.  I misremembered it as a revenge mission. Thanks guys; really must get round to a re-watch.
"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest"

sheridan

Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 19 August, 2019, 10:14:45 PM
Ah, I see.  I misremembered it as a revenge mission. Thanks guys; really must get round to a re-watch.

Once he accepted that he [spoiler]would die[/spoiler], Roy Batty [spoiler]did take revenge[/spoiler], but that wasn't the impetus behind returning to Earth.

Funt Solo

At least we'll have bendy bananas.

Edit: which I meant to post in the politics thread.  Ah well.  It's here now.
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

Funt Solo

Getting myself back on topic...

A.B.C. Warriors, Khronicles Of Khaos [Book I] - it's the last time it was fun.

Ace Trucking Co., The Croakside Trip (but skipping Stoop Coop Soup, On The Dangle & Strike).

Bad Company: can end perfectly well at the first series.  The second does offer something, but it's really a very different story.  It's no longer future war.  (This is okay, because Alien and Aliens offer very different stories: the first is a horror story and the second is an action movie.)  All after The Krool Heart seems superfluous (but I haven't read beyond 2014).

Flesh, Book II

Sinister Dexter, Now & Again

Skizz, Alan Moore
++ A-Z ++  coma ++

IndigoPrime

Quote from: Funt Solo on 20 August, 2019, 02:07:42 AM
At least we'll have bendy bananas.

Edit: which I meant to post in the politics thread.  Ah well.  It's here now.
To be fair, Brexit really should have ended with that, on people thinking "if that's the sole benefit of this thing, and even that is bullshit anyway, let's ditch this ridiculous idea".

JamesC

Quote from: IndigoPrime on 19 August, 2019, 10:54:41 AM
According to the film lore, the Replicants were [spoiler]essentially indistinguishable from humans, bar a few tiny anomalies, and the ageing thing was a failsafe that could be removed[/spoiler]. I don't recall how the book positioned things.

To my mind, Blade Runner falls between two camps. The sequel was unnecessary, but for me didn't impact negatively on the original. I suspect that third category exists for quite a few films. (There are relatively few, though, that with the sequel meaningfully improve the series as a whole. For every Mad Max, there are dozens of "why did you do thats".)

I thought that, while a good film in its own right, it did impact negatively on the first film.
[spoiler]One of the central themes of the original is whether the replicants are actually alive or whether they just 'think' they're alive - that's what makes it thought provoking and philosohical. Once you've established replicants can procreate biologically it pretty much answers that question.[/spoiler]

JOE SOAP

#133
Quote from: JayzusB.Christ on 18 August, 2019, 08:39:15 PM
Also wasn't entirely happy to see Harrison Ford [spoiler]growing old[/spoiler]; unless I've misremembered something that explains things, it kind of takes away from the question of his humanity or lack thereof.

I find that the question of Deckard literally being a replicant, or not, is not in itself a particularly interesting loose-end nor the point, as Ridley Scott continues to argue.

The question for me is can a human who acts like a 'machine' (or artifical non-human if you will) be considered more human than a 'machine' that acts like a human? Which is at the heart of one of Philip K Dick's statements: "living and nonliving things are exchanging properties". Both films resolve, if not conclude, that coundrum in different ways.

sheridan

Quote from: Funt Solo on 20 August, 2019, 02:07:42 AM
At least we'll have bendy bananas.

Edit: which I meant to post in the politics thread.  Ah well.  It's here now.


I certainly agree that Johnson's career should have ended back in 1994, when he made up that myth!