[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Blade Runner question (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 10/28/2009 4:13:23 PM EDT
|
Why does Roy Batty save Deckard?
Does the movie explain it? The DVR I have of the movie stops after the speech about the "things you wouldn't believe" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He comes to terms with his emotions and shows empathy for deckard. Wrong. It is implied several times in the movie and novel that Deckard is in fact himself an android. That isn't a good enough reason in itself for Roy to save him. He valued life...any life. Related: Ridley Scott - Is Deckard a Replicant? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
He comes to terms with his emotions and shows empathy for deckard. Wrong. It is implied several times in the movie and novel that Deckard is in fact himself an android. Um, no. In the original story, Do Androids Dreamn of Electric Sheep, Deckard is most certainly NOT a replicant. And he isn't in the original theatrical release either, which is the superior of the releases. Fuck Ridley Scott. |
|
Quoted:
Why does Roy Batty save Deckard? Why? Its in this speech I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I've watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain. Time to die.
|
|
Quoted:
Novel? No. But in the movie he was definitely 100% positively a replicant, so says the guy who made it. Ridley Scott changed his mind a decade later and said Deckard was a replicant... Harrison Ford called bullshit cause they had a conversation when making the movie that Deckard was definitely not a replicant. As for Roy, in the end he valued life, any life, as stated in the voiceover from the theatrical release. |
| Deckard: [narrating] I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life - anybody's life; my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He comes to terms with his emotions and shows empathy for deckard. Wrong. It is implied several times in the movie and novel that Deckard is in fact himself an android. Um, no. In the original story, Do Androids Dreamn of Electric Sheep, Deckard is most certainly NOT a replicant. And he isn't in the original theatrical release either, which is the superior of the releases. Fuck Ridley Scott. Then explain the origami unicorn, which was in the original before the studio made them edit it out. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Novel? No. But in the movie he was definitely 100% positively a replicant, so says the guy who made it. Phillip K. Dick? Sorry, Deckard was not a replicant in the book, and there was no implication that he was. Who cares what Ridley says. Ridley makes things look good. He doesn't write stories. +1 |
|
Quoted:
Deckard: [narrating] I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life - anybody's life; my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die. And his action served to blur the distinction between replicant and human and beg the question; exactly what makes us human ? |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Deckard: [narrating] I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life - anybody's life; my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die. And his action served to blur the distinction between replicant and human and beg the question; exactly what makes us human ? Exactly. But, to me it had a liberal twist in that we were supposed to forgive and forget the carnage Roy Batty left behind him. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He comes to terms with his emotions and shows empathy for deckard. Wrong. It is implied several times in the movie and novel that Deckard is in fact himself an android. Um, no. In the original story, Do Androids Dreamn of Electric Sheep, Deckard is most certainly NOT a replicant. And he isn't in the original theatrical release either, which is the superior of the releases. Fuck Ridley Scott. yeah I really hate the directors cut and newer versions. I couldnt find the original for sale anywhere. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Deckard: [narrating] I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life - anybody's life; my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die. And his action served to blur the distinction between replicant and human and beg the question; exactly what makes us human ? Tyrell: "More human than human" is our motto.
Such a great movie. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He comes to terms with his emotions and shows empathy for deckard. Wrong. It is implied several times in the movie and novel that Deckard is in fact himself an android. Um, no. In the original story, Do Androids Dreamn of Electric Sheep, Deckard is most certainly NOT a replicant. And he isn't in the original theatrical release either, which is the superior of the releases. Fuck Ridley Scott. yeah I really hate the directors cut and newer versions. I couldnt find the original for sale anywhere. I got a Blue Ray with all versions on it at Wally World. |
|
Quoted:
so basically the argument about whether or not he is a replicant seems like the new han shot first Good analogy indeed. Philip K. Dick, the author of the short story on which the film was based, stated that Deckard was not a replicant. Harrison Ford, who played and created the character onscreen, stated that Deckard was not a replicant. The original film, which by the way was the better of the two, never implied that Deckard was a replicant. In his overly arty, "director's cut," it was Scott who decided that he wanted Deckard to be seen as a replicant. Just as Greedo didn't shoot in the original movie; Deckard was not a replicant. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Deckard: [narrating] I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life - anybody's life; my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die. And his action served to blur the distinction between replicant and human and beg the question; exactly what makes us human ? Exactly. But, to me it had a liberal twist in that we were supposed to forgive and forget the carnage Roy Batty left behind him. Put yourself in Roy Batty's place; what would you have done? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
so basically the argument about whether or not he is a replicant seems like the new han shot first The real question is: Was she built with the timer or not? In the original movie there was a voice over that said she did not. In the director's cut, which sucked, it wasn't made clear. |
|
Quoted: Hard to say, but Dick didn't flesh out the thought behind Batty's actions much. They were infiltrating, we know...but I don't remember if Dick ever explained how Batty knew he was an andy, when some had no idea.Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Deckard: [narrating] I don't know why he saved my life. Maybe in those last moments he loved life more than he ever had before. Not just his life - anybody's life; my life. All he'd wanted were the same answers the rest of us want. Where did I come from? Where am I going? How long have I got? All I could do was sit there and watch him die. And his action served to blur the distinction between replicant and human and beg the question; exactly what makes us human ? Exactly. But, to me it had a liberal twist in that we were supposed to forgive and forget the carnage Roy Batty left behind him. Put yourself in Roy Batty's place; what would you have done? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
so basically the argument about whether or not he is a replicant seems like the new han shot first Good analogy indeed. Philip K. Dick, the author of the short story on which the film was based, stated that Deckard was not a replicant. Harrison Ford, who played and created the character onscreen, stated that Deckard was not a replicant. The original film, which by the way was the better of the two, never implied that Deckard was a replicant. In his overly arty, "director's cut," it was Scott who decided that he wanted Deckard to be seen as a replicant. Just as Greedo didn't shoot in the original movie; Deckard was not a replicant. +1 |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: so basically the argument about whether or not he is a replicant seems like the new han shot first The real question is: Was she built with the timer or not? In the original movie there was a voice over that said she did not. In the director's cut, which sucked, it wasn't made clear. Meh, I recall the book much better than the movie - and it's so different. |
|
First off, a little point that everyone tends to miss:
When Deckard is hanging from the beam, and Roy grabs his arm, if you listen carefully you can clearly hear Roy growl the word "Kinship!". This could be interpreted as either Batty's recognition of Deckard as a fellow Replicant, and thus kin, or else an expression of Batty's epiphany that all life, both human and Replicant, is equally valuable. For what it's worth, amongst the serious Blade Runner fans/scholars, there's really not much of an argument left; the evidence is overwhelmingly on the side of Deckard being a Replicant. There are websites that carefully catalogue and compare the evidence both ways, but the verdict was out years before Scott came out and stated Deckard was one. If you look at the dialogue and visual evidence carefully, and particularly if you watch the extended cut with the original deleted scenes added back in, it's almost painfully obvious that he's a Replicant. http://brmovie.com/FAQs/BR_FAQ_Deck-a-Rep.htm has some further discussion on the matter. If you really want proof, watch the following Youtube video of the Final Cut's restored scenes. Skip to 8:15 (past the extended love scene, which definitely should've been left in the original) and listen to Gaff's statement to Bryant. (referring to the video of Deckard they're watching)
Gaff: "Deckard's a deep one. You gimme that promotion I'll find it sir (or else "it out")." To understand the statement, consider the scenario. If Deckard's a Replicant, it's because he's been deliberately commissioned (with implanted memories) for the sake of hunting down and eliminate rogue Replicants. The one question that's left unanswered in the movie is what Gaff supposedly does as a Blade Runner. He appears, unfailingly, moments after each time Deckard kills a Replicant. The only conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence is that Gaff is observing Deckard from a fairly close distance, ready to appear on-scene whenever necessary. If Deckard is a Replicant, then logically Gaff is the real Blade Runner, responsible for overseeing and managing his tool (Deckard) and ensuring that the criminal Replicants are all eliminated. This is the only theory that fits Gaff's behavior, his statements to Deckard, and his role in the movie. Taking it a step further, one could even speculate that Holden was also another of Gaff's pet Replicants, hence explaining how he survived (barely) multiple direct center-of-mass gunshot wounds. And also explaining why the audience is introduced to Deckard right after seeing Holden critically shot and taken out of action. In sequence: Roy, Pris, Leon, Zhora, and the unnamed 5th Replicant arrive on Earth from the colonies. Gaff activates and deploys Holden to track them down and retire them. Holden is shot; Gaff activates Deckard. The events of the storyline begin: Deckard is given his assignment, completes his task, and the movie ends. Keeping in mind the fact that the voice-over and happy ending are widely known to be not-quite-canon, and added only due to studio pressure, it seems safe to say they have no bearing on the rest of the film. The drive into the mountains "didn't really happen." Which leaves us with the original ending: an elevator door slamming shut on Deckard's particularly complicated look. Do they both die? Does Gaff let them live? We don't know, and we can't know, because that's the deliberate end of the story-the abrutness of the ending itself is integral to the complete meaning of the film as a work of art. Like a stray rifle round through the skull, the ending allows no meditation or reflection on the meaning of its own terminus: blackness is all that remains. |
|
There were about 5 or 6 different versions of Blade Runner, not just the original and directors cut. They were all slightly different, somethings left in, others left out. Scott wanted the the idea that Deckard might be a replica put into to a couple of the versions, or at least get you thinking it might be a possibility. Good? Bad? I don't know, the idea is somewhat intriguing, but it was wholly his idea and not Dick's or Ford's. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Novel? No. But in the movie he was definitely 100% positively a replicant, so says the guy who made it. Ridley Scott changed his mind a decade later and said Deckard was a replicant... Harrison Ford called bullshit cause they had a conversation when making the movie that Deckard was definitely not a replicant. As for Roy, in the end he valued life, any life, as stated in the voiceover from the theatrical release. This get's really confusing once you find out that Ridley Scott is a replicant. |
|
Quoted: Phillip K. Dick? Sorry, Deckard was not a replicant in the book, and there was no implication that he was. Who cares what Ridley says. Ridley makes things look good. He doesn't write stories. Ridley made a great movie. I believe he made three great movies. My favorite is the final cut. The movies are good enough that it does matter what Ridley has to say whether or not he agrees with the original author. I will read the book. This isn't like what Paul Verhoven did to Starship Troopers. The movie was awful. A few moments of fun, but it missed everything from the book. Stupid bastard thinks Heinlein is a fascist. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I seriously have no idea what you guys are talking about. All I remember from that movie is Priss. you don't remember his revolver with the bolt action on top of it? http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v394/fatheadcookie/IM002638.jpg word |