Site Updates
News in Short
Soap Box Poets
Viewers Views
Message Board
Autographed Items
Terms of Use
Views from Viewers

Blade Runner              
                                                         Page #1

"How can it not know wha it is? "

"I like H. Ford very much, especially in Indiana Jones and Star Wars. But in Blade Runner I didn't like him so much - and I think that's because of the script, too.
I didn't like the way they put Rachel and him together - gave me the sense of "rape" - it was an uncomfortable scene for me and I just didn't like that.
But he does do the puppy-dog head cock - watch - you'll see!" Tori

"Hi Rodent, I agree, I didn't like Harrison Ford in BR either. In fact if I am completely honest, I remember I didn't like Blade Runner when I saw it first time, just because I had seen Star Wars previously and expected BR to be something like that and when it turned out to be such a dark film, and Harrison Ford seemed not to be "quite himself" in that film, I was first disappointed because of that. And Rutger was such an terrifying and totally unpredictable character in the film, that I was scared of him, and confused whether to sympathise with the androids or the humans, didn't quite know what to think about that. Anyway, Roy was the main character that I remembered after the film. Later, after some years, I saw BR in a totally different light and started to like it because of its more complicated nature and some other things too..I agree what you said about the way Deckard's and Rachel's relationship is depicted in the film, it is totally different there than what it is in the novel. In fact, in the novel Rachel didn't seem to be so hmm.. brainless than in the film. Not so much different from Pris. (they were both the same nexus replicants) Maybe there had to be such a striking difference between them, because the others were "good" and others "bad". Anyway, it's a great film, I wish happy anniversary to the 20 year-old!" O'cider

"Wanted to comment on Blade Runner, too, as I just read the book, and RH's comment about Rachel being a blow-up doll. Actually - I don't know what to comment, just a ramble I guess. I didn't like what they did with Rachel and Deckerd in the movie, but the book was interesting. In the book, Rachel was rather like a blow-up doll, but very analytical about it, comparing the male reactions of humans and finding them to be very predictable. She was learning how to play them. The movie Rachel - I saw her as more human and NOT a blow-up doll, but Deckerd treated her as one, telling her what to say and she parroted it back to him. But she tried to run from him - that made her more human, to me. I think all this business with cloning makes things confusing for me. The book, it was definitely androids. They died because their cells didn't have the capability of rebuilding themselves, and they eventually wore out. The movie? Genetically engineered enhanced humans who had been given defective genetic material to make them age faster - from Sebastian, I suspect, who was dying from accelerated aging. "There is some of me in you!" he tells them. This caused them to die after a specific time period. Like, the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park. They would die without lysine in their diet, a deliberate flaw in their makeup, a fail safe. Anyway, if you believe as I believe, all organisms, all life, has a soul, to me, the life force itself. So these organic androids, I would perceive them to be alive. So I could see Deckerd running off with Rachel, and all the happily-ever-after horse crap. But the use of force, making her parrot the words she didn't feel - that gave the rubber-dolly effect, so like I said, I don't know what to think. I'm rambling. Later!" Tori

"Just thought I'd pick up on Tori's comments on Blade Runner, (because I just can't resist!) I always wonder if it is really worth making comparisons between the book and the film, because Scott took the elements and some of the ideas of the book and then made something very different from it. Although it still includes much of PKD's ideas, it is a different story, so the replicants of the film are really not the same as the androids of the book. Do I dare disagree with Mr Hauer in his own guestbook? Well actually yes, I do! I've never agreed that Rachael is just like a dishwasher or blow-up doll. To me the whole point is that she is just like a human. In the scene with Deckard and Rachael, firstly she runs because she doesn't trust her memories and her emotions and not (in my view) to get away from Deckard as such. Then he starts a bit rough (his own inability to handle emotions) and tells her what to say, not necessarily because of bullying, but perhaps to help her to realise she can trust herself. He realises he has been rough and stops, holding up his hands because he doesn't want to hurt her. She starts off repeating his words back to him, but ends by saying her own words without prompting. So although some view the scene as like almost-rape, I see something quite different - an acceptance of who they are. And if these replicants are created from DNA, have emotions and perhaps can gain empathy, then what exactly is the difference? What does it mean to be human? I guess I'm rambling a bit too" Netrunner

"Agreed Netrunner. Seems like Deckard was trying to "Jar" Rachael into really "Feeling" and admiting to her emotions for him. Sometimes she was seen as feeling emotions and sometimes as cold as ice, the paradox of android/human mixure fighting within her. I myself found that scene to be quite errrrrr can I say sexy without appearing weird? Deckard himself seemed not to be able to show or handle his own emotions very well, especially his extream lonliness. This "roughness" was a flaw of his character perhaps from his job, perhaps from life and I didn't concider this scene to be a "rape". Yep, cannot compare the movie to the book, like apples and oranges." Kate

"Picking up the thread of the Blade Runner conversation...Something to remember is that PKD did not do the screenplay. There were actually two writers involved in adapting the story to film, and at one point PKD protested the adaptation. I think he said something along the lines of "What have they done to my story?!!" However, he was later pleased with the script that finally resulted. Also, has anyone considered the premise that Deckerd is a replicant himself? Something that makes a little more sense when you watch the Director's cut and see Deckerd's unicorn dream - then Gaff leaves the paper unicorn (symbolizing that Deckerd's memories are implants that are known to others). Just food for thought." James

"Hello again! I rather like all the different takes on this Bladerunner thing. Still - I think the movie was created from the book, even if they changed the screenplay pretty radically. In the book, the androids try to confuse Deckerd into thinking he is an android, too. So I think that might be why they added that bit with the Unicorn. The book also gives you a stronger sense of how analytical androids are,how lacking in emotion. The spider bit really got to me. Makes me think, sometimes, that the more intelligence a person has, the less empathy they have, perhaps. Like, scientists doing animal research. "Isn't that an interesting result?" with no regard for the pain. Like Tyrell, and his attitude. The book hit on that too - humans could indeed be mistaken for androids for not having the correct empathic response. // I think it has a bit of value, comparing the two - it certainly gives you something to think about, and talk about. And - the one would not have existed, without the other. // Take care, all!" Tori

"Android (an'droid) adj. Possessing human features - n. A synthetic man created from biological materials. Also called humanoid. (Late Greek androeides, manlike: ANDR(O) - OID.) THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE (1976) Also called humanoid? Now that I have read the BR novel "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?" I think that it wasn't as good as the movie, it was a gloomy novel about a gloomy future world with a main character who questioned his sanity and tried to find some reasons to hope for a better future. It was also about religion and searching the truth behind the scenes. _ Some parts of the novel were better than the screenplay. Some of the names were changed, like Isidore turned into J F Sebastian. Why? Isidore sounded too Asian, perhaps? It was sad he had to die too, even though he had helped the androids...but he had seen too much. Oh yes, even Philip K Dick couldn't predict the cell phones we now have, THERE ARE STILL PHONE BOOTHS IN BR!! I find that funny. And I have to mention, the scene of LA skyscrapers (that look like Pisa Baptisterio) from the Tyrell building is one of my favorite scenes in the movie. Among many. Too bad Philip K Dick never saw the film. Now that's enough, I stop here.'' O'cider

"Oh I have to add about Rachel's character. She seemed to be vulnerable like a human being, but then she still had somewhat superior physical powers compared to the humans...then why didn't she beat up Deckard like Zhora and Pris did, when he became somewhat abusive towards her. And if Deckard was an android, why did he got so beaten up? Questions, questions..:)" O'cider

"er - I didn't mean that exactly the way it came out - that bit about intelligence and empathy. I certainly didn't mean to insinuate that all smart people are cold blooded! I don't know what I meant. Rambling, again. Yeah, O'cider - there were a couple of things in the books we have now that weren't in there! 1968 - doesn't seem that long ago, does it? But a lot can happen in 30 years - thank God it didn't happen the way it did in that book!" Tori

                Page #2     Page #3   Page #4     Page #5     Page #6

                Page #7     Page #8     Page #9     Page #10     Page#11

Views from Viewers List

Visitors since October 29, 1999

I've Seen Films
Rutger Hauer Film Factory
Photo Galleries
Hot Shots
TV Interviews,
  ©Rutger Hauer