Bladerunner...

SixTwoSix · 10 Sep 2009 at 12:28

Watched the Final Cut of Bladerunner the other day in glorious HD and it's one of those older films that actually does look better in HD, don't know the ins and outs of the process, but looked stunning.

Anyway, before getting sidetracked on the wonderful visuals, can someone explain the meaning of the origami unicorn at the end?

I've seen so many versions of this movie it's all a muddle and i'm sure i've seen a version where Dekkard and Rachel are driving off in the countryside somewhere with the sun shining at the end, or did I dream that?

And finally...didn't realise Admiral Adama was in this movie either

Tummy · 10 Sep 2009 at 12:43

Rick Deckard is the anti-hero of Blade Runner, hired to "retire" replicants. The nature of most of the characters is clearly shown, yet Deckard's character is ambiguous, and viewers are left doubtful; aficionados debate this matter. If Deckard is human, then his being spared by Roy and his love for Rachael soften the line between human and replicant, adding conflicting ambivalence to the story. If Deckard is a replicant, the irony is greater. There is a sequence in the Director's Cut version that alters the significance of the origami unicorn that Gaff leaves in Deckard's apartment, suggesting to the viewer (and to Deckard) that Gaff knows about Deckard's dream in the same manner that Deckard knows about Rachael's implanted memories. If the origami unicorn seen in the Director's Cut reveals Deckard as a replicant in the film's end, then the audience's expectations and prejudices are questioned — and, by extension, our humanity.

SixTwoSix · 10 Sep 2009 at 12:59

That's opened a new can of worms, never thought about it from the point that deckard might be a replicant himself, I thought the unicorn somehow referred to rachael

ElliorR · 10 Sep 2009 at 13:10

From what I've read of the whole Deckard is a replicant debate is Ridley Scott has said, since the film was made, that Deckard WAS a replicant, but this has seemed to annoyed Harrison Ford as he recalls that whilst filming RS assured him Deckard was human.

Or something like that.

To me Deckard was a replicant.

Makunouchi · 10 Sep 2009 at 13:14

You can copy/paste as much as you like but one of the great things about Blade Runner is so much is left open to interpretation by the viewer, I don't believe there's any definite 'this is what such and such means' answer.

"Too bad she won't live!"

Tummy · 10 Sep 2009 at 13:53

I can and will copy and past, I thought that was a good and valid opinion of what happened.

Ridley Scott has said that Deckard was a replicant, but Harrision Ford said he always thought he was a human. There are different versions of the film out, which point towards two different views on Deckard, the Directors Cut points towards him been a replicant.

MonkeyNews · 10 Sep 2009 at 13:58

Did anyone actually ask Philip K. Dick before he died whether Deckard was human or not?

He would have known for definite.

Tummy · 10 Sep 2009 at 14:01

Fishfingers said:
Did anyone actually ask Philip K. Dick before he died whether Deckard was human or not?

He would have known for definite.

iirc, Deckard was human in the book.

Wouldn't be the first time the film version, changed from the book.

ElliorR · 10 Sep 2009 at 14:01

Fishfingers said:
Did anyone actually ask Philip K. Dick before he died whether Deckard was human or not?

He would have known for definite.

The thing about Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep is it's so different from the film that any comparison is limited.

MonkeyNews · 10 Sep 2009 at 14:03

But im pretty sure the main character would be the same in both whether replicant or not, it would make no sense otherwise.

Tummy · 10 Sep 2009 at 14:18

The book's plot served as the primary basis for the film.

Films often make many changes from the books, this will include characters.

Swampyseifer · 10 Sep 2009 at 14:34

Thank god the film wasnt closer to the book....the Batty Breifcase was too much

MonkeyNews · 10 Sep 2009 at 14:38

But if he was human in the book then it should be as read him being human in the film unless specifically proved on film that he was a replica. What would be the point of changing a major facet of the main character but not divulging this change.

osc89er · 10 Sep 2009 at 15:38

Fishfingers said:
But if he was human in the book then it should be as read him being human in the film unless specifically proved on film that he was a replica. What would be the point of changing a major facet of the main character but not divulging this change.

You seem not to understand that Hollywood movies can and will change anything that want to and **** the consequences!