It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
Community
General discussion (archive)There is going to be a Blade Runner 2...(80 posts)(80 posts)
(80 posts)
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Posted October 09, 2013
avatar
Elmofongo: But why make them so human like, if anything just make them look like the Robots from I,Robot:

http://blogs.swa-jkt.com/swa/10472/files/2013/03/i-robot-2004-42-g11.jpg
avatar
Randalator: I answered both parts of that question already. I'll help you find it with a little strategically placed bold text.
I see.
Posted October 09, 2013
avatar
tinyE: I still think it's better than the book though Dickey fans will no doubt want to burn me for uttering such heresy.
I'm with you on this one.
I'm also guilty of liking the 'sunny' theatrical ending.
Posted October 09, 2013
avatar
tinyE: I still think it's better than the book though Dickey fans will no doubt want to burn me for uttering such heresy.
avatar
Novotnus: I'm with you on this one.
I'm also guilty of liking the 'sunny' theatrical ending.
You also like those dead fishy treats and catnip...

o_O?!
Posted October 09, 2013
avatar
tinyE:
avatar
Novotnus: I'm also guilty of liking the 'sunny' theatrical ending.
Okay well now I have to kill you. :P
Posted October 09, 2013
avatar
Elmofongo: I just re-read Spoony's review and yes I agree:

Why did Tryrell made the Replicants looks so human-like when they are only made for slavery such as terraforming and wars, I am certain in real life we would not make robots look too human like. Yes, yes if they were not human like than the film's theme and message would not be there, but still making robots for things like Wars and Terraforming look exactly human is just illogical.
From what I remember, they're not robots, they're organic androids*. They're not human (in the strictest sense) but they're derived from humans genetically. They look human because that's what they started with, they worked on human DNA.

*android means an artificial human, it says nothing about whether they're mechanical or biological just that they're man-like. Robot on the other hand implies a certain mechanical nature, but says nothing about the shape (so it could be humanoid or like a robot in a car factory).
Post edited October 10, 2013 by SirPrimalform
Posted October 10, 2013
avatar
Elmofongo: I just re-read Spoony's review and yes I agree:

Why did Tryrell made the Replicants looks so human-like when they are only made for slavery such as terraforming and wars, I am certain in real life we would not make robots look too human like. Yes, yes if they were not human like than the film's theme and message would not be there, but still making robots for things like Wars and Terraforming look exactly human is just illogical.
avatar
SirPrimalform: From what I remember, they're not robots, they're organic androids*. They're not human (in the strictest sense) but they're derived from humans genetically. They look human because that's what they started with, they worked on human DNA.

*android means an artificial human, it says nothing about whether they're mechanical or biological just that they're man-like. Robot on the other hand implies a certain mechanical nature, but says nothing about the shape (so it could be humanoid or like a robot in a car factory).
Yes I know what an andriod/cyborg.

Also its sad that I watched the version with Narration, you know there is something done wrong with these films when they made different versions of it. But even watching the better version I have seen this kind of story before.
Posted October 10, 2013
avatar
SirPrimalform: From what I remember, they're not robots, they're organic androids*. They're not human (in the strictest sense) but they're derived from humans genetically. They look human because that's what they started with, they worked on human DNA.

*android means an artificial human, it says nothing about whether they're mechanical or biological just that they're man-like. Robot on the other hand implies a certain mechanical nature, but says nothing about the shape (so it could be humanoid or like a robot in a car factory).
Yeah, that whole robot/organism thing is one of the mistakes in the movie that never got corrected. The opening crawl calls the replicants "robots" right before referring to their creators as "genetic engineers". From there on out there is not a single reference to them having any mechanical parts. It's always "genetic design", "genetic engineering" and the whole discussion between Tyrell and Roy only touches on biological issues, altering DNA, viruses, etc. Their eyes are clearly organic and we see Roy injuring himself to get a surge of adrenaline to keep himself going when his body starts to shut down. Everything we ever see in the movie clearly shows the replicants as organic beings rather than mechanical entities.

It might be meant as the Tyrell corporation moving on from robots to genetic design, but it's still weirdly phrased and only manages to throw everybody off...
Post edited October 10, 2013 by Randalator
Posted October 10, 2013
avatar
Reever: Would you say the same for 2001: A Space Odyssey? :P
avatar
Randalator: No.

It's this weird thing with Kubrick movies that I just can't seem to get into them. I can appreciate the artistic value and cultural importance of films like A Clockwork Orange or 2001 but on a personal level they kinda fail to push the right buttons with me. 2001 is the movie of his that I enjoy the most, though, and the only one that I'll actually pop into the BD player and watch on occasion. But it's not one of my favourite movies. I like it in an academic sense, as a movie buff, but I don't love it to itty bitty pieces like Blade Runner.
I know I'll get crucified for saying this, but I don't remember watching a Clockwork Orange. Should I read the book first though? Any recommendations?
Posted October 10, 2013
avatar
SirPrimalform: From what I remember, they're not robots, they're organic androids*. They're not human (in the strictest sense) but they're derived from humans genetically. They look human because that's what they started with, they worked on human DNA.

*android means an artificial human, it says nothing about whether they're mechanical or biological just that they're man-like. Robot on the other hand implies a certain mechanical nature, but says nothing about the shape (so it could be humanoid or like a robot in a car factory).
avatar
Elmofongo: Yes I know what an andriod/cyborg.

Also its sad that I watched the version with Narration, you know there is something done wrong with these films when they made different versions of it.
Not really. Directors do this all the time. I'm just glad that Ridley Scott doesn't try to strike the original version from history a la George Lucas.

Am I the only one who actually liked the voice-over of the theatrical cut? It lends itself nicely to the neo-noir atmosphere.
Posted October 10, 2013
avatar
Reever: I know I'll get crucified for saying this, but I don't remember watching a Clockwork Orange. Should I read the book first though? Any recommendations?
I wouldn't know, I never read the book.
Posted October 10, 2013
avatar
Reever: I know I'll get crucified for saying this, but I don't remember watching a Clockwork Orange. Should I read the book first though? Any recommendations?
avatar
Randalator: I wouldn't know, I never read the book.
Okay :D Anybody else?
Posted October 12, 2013
Clockwork Orange? Film & book are great, I think go with the film first. Part of the backstory there is the film doesn't tell the whole story, it actually ignore's the books ending. So by watching the film first you leave room for spoilers. Also I think the book can be a bit more disturbing at certain parts. Like how in the film you'll see a sex scene that is wild & fun, but in the novel that scene is actually pretty sick & creepy. So you wont spoil the film if the book turns out to be not quite your thing.
Posted October 12, 2013
This is the movie I say when people ask what my favorite movie is (though I think it's a dumb question).

I would be super into another movie set in that WORLD, but not a narrative sequel. I think that's how most sequels should do things actually, especially with movies like Blade Runner which are more famous for their aesthetic and setting than their characters.
Posted May 16, 2014
avatar
StingingVelvet: This is the movie I say when people ask what my favorite movie is (though I think it's a dumb question).

I would be super into another movie set in that WORLD, but not a narrative sequel. I think that's how most sequels should do things actually, especially with movies like Blade Runner which are more famous for their aesthetic and setting than their characters.
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.850189-Producers-Say-To-Harrison-Ford-Please-Be-In-Our-Blade-Runner-Sequel
Posted May 16, 2014
avatar
StingingVelvet: This is the movie I say when people ask what my favorite movie is (though I think it's a dumb question).

I would be super into another movie set in that WORLD, but not a narrative sequel. I think that's how most sequels should do things actually, especially with movies like Blade Runner which are more famous for their aesthetic and setting than their characters.
avatar
Elmofongo: http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.850189-Producers-Say-To-Harrison-Ford-Please-Be-In-Our-Blade-Runner-Sequel
!! SPOILER !!

If Deckard was, in fact, a replicant, he should have died within a few years after the original movie. So if Harrison Ford appears in the sequel, that would mean that Deckard was definitely not a replicant, which would destroy the ambiguity of the film's ending. I don't like that idea.
Pages:
1
2
3
4
5
6
This is my favourite topic
Community
General discussion (archive)There is going to be a Blade Runner 2...(80 posts)(80 posts)
(80 posts)