Read Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. It's not very long, it's worth the effort. It is the most perfect depiction of the future social justice warriors want. Even better, it was written as a parody of what right wingers think left wingers want.
the empathy test proves it..... you're walking along the desert what one? excuse me? what desert? doesn't matter, completely hypothetical why am I there?? uhh, maybe you;re fed up or something who knows..... anyways you're walking along the desert and you see a tortoise.... what's a tortoise? know what a turtle is? same thing the tortoise is lying on it's back....baking in the heat and it's trying to turn itself over but it can't, not without your help and you're not helping... *no emotional reaction detected* tell me in simple words what comes to mind when you think of your mother *a hole the size of LA is created in my chest as i'm shot to death*
True, except the last question would be about her father. She clearly has daddy issues. I don't just mean vague ones either. Apparently her father is a strong supporter of Donald Trump.
Harrison Ford always seems to have a much better grasp of the characters he plays than the people behind the scenes. If I'm not mistaken, many of the guy's most iconic moments were his inventions or additions to the script.
Ded Mosh Couldn't disagree more. I like Han Solo but that's precisely why his death would have given Return Of The Jedi an legitimate sense of gravitas and danger that it really needed, at leat in my opinion.
No, that's what actors are SUPPOSED to do. The actor is supposed to take what the writer has developed and, with the help of the Director, polish it into a fully rounded character. Leonard Nimoy used to do this with Spock. Nimoy came up with things like the Vulcan salute, the mind meld and the nerve pinch himself because he was able to take what the writers developed and make it his own. That's what actors are supposed to be for. The trouble is, we're so used to seeing vacuous whores who think that they're royalty turn up, parrot off a few lines with a look of dull surprise on their face and bag an Oscar for it, that we've forgotten what real acting is supposed to look like.
Critical analysis on anything from Sarkeesian is much like watching an Adam Sandler movie: You may get some half-hearted laughs out of it but in the end you always know you've come out dumber then when you started. And you refuse to tell your friends and loved ones that you willingly sat through it.
I always interpreted the "assault" scene in Blade Runner as a moment of severe weakness for Deckard. He needed reciprocation. He needed to feel human. While I don't believe Deckard is a replicant, I think he lacks humanity, and in that moment lacks solipsism. Until Batty spares his life at the end, he truly does not recognize that these machines are far more human than he ever was. So the scene between him and Rachel absolutely is assault (if you don't discount it being as such by virtue of her being a replicant), but the film does not justify Deckard's behavior. It reinforces his morally nebulous nature.
As a woman I never saw this as rape. I wonder if it is because he pursues her and stops her from leaving that "triggers" people into seeing it as rape. But I also wonder if it isn't a part of her programming. Or a part of Deckard's programming (if in theory he is a replicant). Can it even be considered rape if both participants are robots or is even the concepts rape and sex purely a human emotion? Tyrell did say he made her special. Or was that from the voice over version. I don't know where my copy of Blade Runner went so I can't be sure of what cut it was. Regardless, Rachel stays with Deckard, Deckard stays with Rachel. And lets face it, if they're staying with each other they're going to have sex again.
It's kind of childlike or caveman behavior, unsophisticated as you could expect from someone with very little real life experience. Deckard is a replicant as Ridley Scott has confirmed and hinted at via the origami unicorn.
@@OpenMawProductions Ridley Scott (wrongly) thought it was a good idea to hint at Deckard being a replicant, at least in the Director's and the Final Cut. It depends on the cut you watch, the Theatrical cut is different in this aspect. The film works better for me if Deckard is not a replicant, like in the Theatrical cut but is also poorly served with that voice over.
The music turns darker when he goes to stop her from leaving. It turns back to the saxophone music to lighten the tone when they actually start having sex. I blame all the cuts of the film. Some cuts are rapey, some are love making. Just makes everybody confused. Kenny G is cheesy saxophone music. Blade Runner is film noir saxophone music. HUGE difference. I'm bias though. I love good saxophone music. But not from Kenny G. Listening to too much Kenny G is like listening to too much Yanni. Just don't do it.
+Snarky McSne Yeah maybe some even see the change in music meant to imply consent, but AS framed it as during the whole scene the lighter tone was playing instead of the darker. It was light, dark, and light again. I agree on saxophone music, it's nice but not always. I worked in a sub shop where Songbird played every 30 minutes.
I hear it was Ro-bit. Maybe Roe-biit. Regardless it's at least as funny to me if not more as when my buddy used to intentionally mispronounce sniper rifle(which is kind of a civvie bullshit word) as Snipper Riffle
Again with the "feminists terrified/appalled by sex robuts narrative" right? Mark my words she'll say the same goddamm thing when that Detroit: Become Human game comes out.
I'm glad I found this video. For years, I felt as though Deckard was supposed to be a human, but every commentary I could find said I was wrong. Naturally, I began to doubt myself. Even if I am insane, it's nice to have company in the asylum.
That entire segment explaining whether Deckard was human or not had me clapping it was so goddamn true. If Deckard's a replicant, Blade Runner becomes a significantly more...simple movie, thematically. It's literally just an android hunting other androids, fucking another android and running away with said android. But if human...it becomes the story of a man regaining his humanity after spending so long becoming dehumanised. Bravo Mr. Fist, my fucking thoughts exactly!
Oh yeah, overall the ambiguity of whether he is human or not (there's plenty of evidence for both sides) just puts Blade Runner (which even without it would still be my favourite goddamn movie ever) on a whole different level. But the explanation for Deckard's humanity on this video is 1:1 the reason for why I personally am on the "Deckard's human" side.
Remember how Dick said Deckard's arc is that is increasingly de-humanised through his work? In Ridley's version he goes in reverse: from a sub-human to a human. Either reading of Deckard works.
That depends on a couple of key things. If Deckard is Nexus 6 or at least a new prototype derived from Nexus 6 like Rachael (I know he clearly can't be cuz of 2049 but fuck that goddamn movie for ruining such an amazing debate in the film community) then that means he's most likely not had very long to get dehumanised from his work as a Blade Runner. By the beginning of the movie, he had already been doing it for so long that he called it quits and retired. So either the work is so horrible or Deckard is so fragile that he broke after 4 years at most of being a Blade Runner. If he's a human however, he's had anything from 10-20 years (if Deckard's age is the same as Harrison Ford's, 40) to become dehumanised to it which makes more sense and adds more impact when he eventually finishes his character arc. So while it still makes sense from the POV that Deckard is a replicant? It's a significantly more poignant part of Deckard's character if he's a human being and has been getting dehumanised for the last 10-20 years. Then, it becomes a story about a human regaining his own humanity because of synthetic lifeforms who are more human than he ever was, when they weren't even human at all.
Or he's an android that's shown his humanity by other androids? TBH I think ambiguity works better by giving some mystery to the character rather than explicitly telling us he's human. Having said that, the unicorn origami figure seemed a little heavy-handed to me by tipping my interpretation towards Deckard being a replicant. If Deckard is a replicant then - like Rachel - he will soon face his mortality and this adds some pathos.
I remember in college one class I had this girl was doing a presentation on Blade Runner and tried to make it look misogynistic by pointing out that Pris and Zora were the only characters to have prolonged and horrible death scenes, even though Tyrell gets his eyes ripped out, James Hong's character gets tortured with those thermal hoses, and even Deckard himself gets his shit royally fucked up.
I agree with everything you said, the development in the original is of a man that learned to be human again (or maybe for the 1st time) in an unfeeling world, and it was a biological machine of all things that sparked him to do. Tyrell said they made replicants more human than human, and in the end he's proven right as humans in this future have been deadened inside from what they used to be. I always thought THAT was the film, what made it a classic. Making him a replicant just hollows this. And as for the unicorn scene, I have zero idea how that became a calling card for Deckard being a replicant; I always thought it symbolized freedom or something like that, he'd found something special that was rare (Rachel perhaps) a literal unicorn. When I heard it it was intended to show he was a replicant, I thought "there's Ridley Scott being Ridley Scott" Literally everyone on the original creative team disagreed with the idea that he was a replicant.
first time I watched blade runner.. (that music) ... I was so absorbed by the atmosphere... it was RAINING in real life, the sun was setting .. it was the middle of fall... my fire place crackling.... I swear to god for a brief but glorious time I was living in that world. lets say its one of my favorite movies of all fucking time
I think it's funny, how she's padding her nonexistent chest to make it look like she has a bustline. She's doing everything she can to look less like a malformed, hawk-nose goblin with ZERO-cup titties.
"He was talking about people without emotions, people without empathy, people without feelings who's sole goal in life seems to be satisfying their own cravings" ... so he was talking about Anita Sarkeesian and those like her then.
"According to movies like Bladerunner, our gritty cyberpunk future is going to be just as racist and sexist as the present day..." I'm not sure Anita understands the definition of a "Dystopia"...
Thank you for referencing the book and Philip K Dick's interviews, I hope this encourages more people to read the book. It's a very easy read, very accessible - imaginative, quirky and bizarre, depressing yet hopeful at the end despite near everything that kept Decker going revealed to be a fraud by that point.
*_"A good mystery is always better than a lousy answer."_* This is a basic lesson that is taught again and again these days in modern cinema; if they are not perverting entire genres or franchises, then they are settling for destroying the hallmarks of standalone classics. Here's hoping the upcoming Death Wish remake is not as patricidal as Bladerunner 2049 was.
+PeterDivine Blade Runner didn't invent it's cyberpunk aesthetic it popularized it in film. Having a neon-soaked cityscape doesn't = copying Blade Runner. I'm getting real sick of all these Blade Runner fans acting like Neuromancer was never a thing. I love Blade Runner but you have to understand that it's extremely ahead of it's time and therefore somewhat limited in what it does both narrative wise and thematically. At the time it was mind-blowing but it was just an introduction.
“A good mystery is always better than a lousy answer” This should honestly be the official slogan for the Alien franchise after the last two ridiculous entries to the series Ridley Scott has put out.
"Women's Studies isn't a degree it's a decorative wall hanging." And yes like Carnage Pool I loved the "I'm all for a women's movement, I hate it when they just lie there" line. Razor does the no fucks given comedy so well.
*RU-vid* "Your interested in blade runner and someone's paying me to shill for Blade Runner, here's Blade Runner ad" *Watchers* "omg so meta such unexpectibru"
She keeps calling Zhora a stripper-it's flat out said she's a combat/assassin model in the scene with the police chief, a scene she herself used as referencd
That last clip, hurt me... It's no longer about the art, it's about the money. And if the price is right, they will ruin something meaningful, for a cash grab.
"You can stream the sequal on a plane, I'd still walk the F out!" Wow! You take self deprecating humor to a new level (Well,it would take a minute, or two... to get down to earth...)
I had no idea that Scott had ever specified, in words, that Deckard was definitely human. The more I find out about his source material, the less I like Ridley Scott, as a person.
Mark Kermode interviewed Ridley and Denis before 2049 came out and asked the former to confirm if Deckard was indeed a replicant and he went on his usual diatribe. Denis jumped at that and said that he doesn't think it's that clear at all. (you can watch the video on that: ID fLD4X9zrK14) I watched it yesterday. There is no point in the movie where they confirm or unconfirm Deckard as a human/replicant. It's simply not addressed.
It was addressed in Jared Leto's ridiculous exposition speech at the end of the film and if the circumstances regarding Rachel are true, it's a big indicator that Deckard is in fact a replicant. If he isn't than there's no way for the "twist" to work, it's simply an anomaly.
I don't see how the circumstances regarding Rachel impact Deckard's nature as a replicant/human. The only part of the film which you could point to as a nudge to what Deckard might be is when Wallace mentions the concept of love vs mathematical algorithms, to which Deckard justaposes with a "I know what's real." But you can just as well dismiss it because that theme itself is not addressed. There might exist other details which I didn't notice. If so, please point them out. I didn't find any big indicators for Deckard's nature, one way or the other.
I was reaaally reluctant to go see BR(rrrrrp)2049, and avoided all info on it, not even downloading the program for Rift. Blade Runner is my favorite film, and I don't take thrashing that legacy lightly. I respect the Rage, and so this was me dipping my toes. Thanks for not spoiling it, but indicating the Deckard is a Replicant angle. That's all I need to know, Im never watching this abomination. How Ridley Scott could have missed the entire fundamental point of his own masterpiece, is a question for the synthetic brains of the future to ponder endlessly. Its like one of those questions you ask an AI, putting it into a terminal logical spiral, resulting in an 80's style face melt.
I literally watched the movie yesterday, as it was on TV without commercial breaks. Now I can't get the image of Sean Young smoking a cigarillo out of my head.
Having seen the sequel now, I REALLY want Razor to see it. I feel like he's forcing himself to hate it and won't give it a chance, I was pleasantly surprised and I feel like he would be too.
Just got back from the theatre and yeah... Bladerunner 2049 was incredible. If you liked the original Bladerunner you'll probably like this one. The movie does a great job of feeling like an expansion to Bladerunner. It's hard to put my finger on it but I absolutely loved this movie. Edit: Uh in regards to the Deckard question uh no. No I don't recall Deckard's humanity ever being conclusively answered in the film.
Exactly. The Deckard question isn't even remotely relevant to the plot of the film. I think that's what is so sad about the prejudice against the film. It's not even really a direct sequel to Bladerunner as much as it is an expansion to the universe of the film. Honestly I thought the film was brilliant and it's a shame that it won't do well at the theaters. So to anyone reading who isn't sure about this movie and is anxious about them fucking with the lore I can assure you that the Deckard question is almost largely ignored.
So just watched 2049 tonight, I've read the book, I've seen Theatrical, Directors, and Final. I would highly recommend it, it leaves you with the same type of questions as the original, and it was very true to the universe (to the point that it actually brings up concepts covered in the source material but not covered in the original movie) I will gladly pay for your ticket if it means I'll get an interesting review/commentary video out of it.
my uncle unfortunately passed away earlier this year, and he left me a collection of about 150+ laserdiscs including 2 copies of Blade Runner. RIP Uncle and thanks for everything, it's about time I actually owned said film
I had a college professor who got positively MOIST over the Deckard-as-Replicant idea. Of course this was the same professor who assigned two of his own books as required reading (and buying) for the course. Ah, 400 level BA courses really are the equivalent of 100 level BS courses.
Dude please watch the movie I saw it and was blown away. It is everything the original was. This is everything star trek fans wish the directors of the new series would figure out. How to make a new movie that is it's own but still makes you feel everything you felt from the original.
The movie wasn't that great, if could've been fantastic if they actually explored the idea of Replicants being able to reproduce instead of glancing over it , and why did every scene had to feel like it was drawn out like crazy. Also, Jared Leto's character was a huge waste of time, what was his motivation? what is the pay off for this character? absolutely nothing in the end.
Call me a simpleton but I always found this movie to be a commentary on a human nature. Our animalistic instincts that would prevent us from ever reaching a Star Trek like utopia and that even our creations would surpass us in humanity and compassion.
OsakaRose Sakura uh, it was released yesterday in Korea through pre-screening-that I know for sure, as well as the various pre-screenings in America. And I'm pretty sure the movie was released at the time of his comment.
Never understood how people can advocate for Deckard being a replicant and how it's somehow makes it deeper. If he is a human than this is a simple beautiful story arc with definitive ending, but if he is a replicant, all of it is out and it raises more questions, mainly, "Why the fuck?"
Well. I'm a huge Blade Runner fan. I saw the new movie. I loved it. And that big question? STILL very ambiguous, and they directly address it. I can only say that you should go watch it. I dig your channel and I think you might like it.
Deck could be a replicant, people have argued it, evidence is planted for it, but I never liked it like that. I wanted him to be human, he bears the guilt and shame of what he has done. Is cunning, but angry, passionate, but alone. That's humanity!
Bladerunner 2 is actually pretty good, and thankfully it's not plagued with modern progressive baggage. It's one of the only films I've seen in years to deliver on pure whimsical fantasy, without having to slam its politics in your face. It's nowhere near as good as the original, but everyone should still see it.
I seen the Final Cut on DVD and I assumed Decker was a replicant because of tjat damn oragami at the end...it always drilled into me that oh decker is a replicant seeing as that guy...forgot name...left that clue at the end
Outed Herself as a vapid philistine the minute She can after Vangelis. It's amazing how those with shockingly poor taste have the opinions to match... ...When I say amazing, I mean inevitable.
Both the movie and the book are great, and they complement each other in my opinion. I recommend them both. Preferably the movie first and the books afterwards.
Just watched the new one; and it answered no questions about the first; it left the question whether Deckard is a replicant unanswered, and as far as I'm concerned, there seemed to be more evidence in favor of him being human. The movie... the thing is, the story is kind of good, there are even oh, moments in there, and some significant mindfuckery, but the execution... oh, man, made clearly by people who bought their own hype about how clever and intellectual they are. First of all, the world seems empty, like a lifeless background, almost, that world completely lacks that quintessential, 80s, upbeat vibrancy even in a near dystopian nasty future. There is a big upgrade in giant adds; they're holograms, and they can react to you, and squat down near you, and actually interact with you on a personal level; which is actually a great idea, makes sense, personalized adds in the real world; except they're not around. You see them only once or twice and do their thing only once; the world so lacks in population, most of the city is CGI concrete housing we don't see anyone in or outside of. And then the characters; Deckard was someone emotionless/stoic in the original, but that was his character. That's pretty much every character now, human and replicant alike, where in the original people and replicants alike showed emotion; most everyone in the new one would make Spock jealous. And then there's the music track, or should I call it the music sting. The whole thing is just one continued music sting, with a few tracks here in there that are a little bit more, but all of them scream, "We are so profound! And so smart! And so deep! Feel, my audience, feel! And praise me for my intellect!" Half-way through the movie they start throwing you out of it, making you think about the scene and then you going, "No, no, you're not that profound, or deep, if you were you wouldn't need to tell me every two seconds with that stupid music sting." So where the original was subtly profound by showing if you paid attention, the difference between the way human characters and human background characters interacted with each other, the way Deckard behaved, and the Replicants in turn; in this movie everyone are just one-expression Spocks, with but two or three exceptions and only once or twice. Instead of showing you what is going on, the characters are constantly telling you. And the deeply sad thing, like I mentioned at the beginning; the basic story is damn good; if it hadn't been executed and executively produced by people who bought their own hype ages ago, with a good soundtrack, a vibrant living world, with many different interactions; this could have been really good, dare I say it, fantastic. Which, ultimately makes it sadder; I find myself more disappointed by something that had a gem at the core and the end result being merely average, than something that's just plain shit.
Very surprised that I loved the new Blade Runner (1982 original probably my favorite movie) - Not a cash grab. I can't wait to get your take on it Razor. Hell, if Anita can find fault with a Robot named Luv calling down artillery strikes while getting her nails done, she may seriously have to question her humanity.
