Blade Runner Message Board
UMD: Sarah posts on 9/30/2008 11:13:46 PM
I think this movie was a difficult one to follow and understand at first. I began watching Blade Runner and I had to keep going back to certain parts to figure out what was going on. It was definitely hard to get into the movie at first, but as it went on it became easier to follow. I do not think this was one of Harrison Ford's best films, but he did play the role of Blade Runner fairly well. After watching the movie I reflected on it for awhile and read some of the articles and essays from the websites given to us. I began to realize there was a deeper meaning behind this movie than just trying to get rid of the bad guys that came to earth. It really does make one question what makes us human. The replicates supposedly do not show emotion, so that makes them not human. But they are alive, thinking, and have a heart beat so does that mean they are human? And I never even thought about whether or not Deckard was a replicant, I just figured that he was not since he was trying to get rid of the replicants. Blade Runner turned out to be a much better film than I had originally thought and anticipated. The beginning is a little difficult to get through but as the movie goes on it gets much more interesting. It is a movie that really makes a person think and that may be what makes this such a great science fiction film.
ellis243 posts on 9/24/2008 11:15:24 AM
The movie Blade Runner was incredibly thought provoking. Should something considered "more human than human" be treated like less than a human? Did any one else find that contradictory? Also, what makes them "more human?" Sure they are stronger, quicker, and more beautiful but is that what defines humanity? Personally I think that these traits just give us something to fear, or is it that we as humans fear ourselves even in our truest form?
Some of you have pointed out that the replicants seem to have these raw emotions. It is like they are adult children really, they do not know how to control thier emotions yet. Its like having a four year old in an adult body, of course they are going to react strongly to certain situations. Especially since they are slaves and probably not treated as anything of worth. Its really not surprising that the six replicants took over the ship. In the past humans that have been enslaved have risen up in times of oppression. Its a fairly predictable result,
Samuel posts on 9/22/2008 7:14:39 PM
Let me start by saying that I can understand why this film received little attention when it first came out, and how most of that little attention was negative. However, I will also add that I can definitely see how this film gained a "cult following" many many years ago, and continues today to receive more and more controversy among it's viewers. Blade Runner is a film filled with symbolism and metaphors, and that's to be appreciated. One of the biggest issues for me, and I have seen numerous others comment about it, too... is the question, "Is Deckard a replicant?" I've seen so many arguments for it and against it, and I've come to the personal decision of "no, he is not a replicant." Let me tell you why. I believe one of the huge messages incorporated into the film was the contentious and controversial matter of Tyrell developing these replicants to begin with. Is he playing God? Is it socially and morally acceptable to create beings which may be able to develop emotional responses? I believe this central question is presented in the film when it shows this human named Deckard, with such little emotional display, retiring these replicants, and then on the total opposite side of the coin, it shows Roy, this replicant with supposedly no emotions, get his heart shattered to pieces when he finds his lover Pris dead on the floor. How can one not ask themselves, is a man with little or even no emotion better than a robot, or an android, or a replicant over-flowing with raw emotion?
Selina posts on 9/18/2008 3:20:00 PM
I really enjoyed this movie because it made me think. There are so many interesting characters who all portray different roles. This movie makes you think about your own life and how important it is. So many times we take what we have for granted, especially time. Blade Runner also made me think about the future and what technology will be available. I've always been leary of technology. I do believe that it can go too far and that some day we may regret what we have done. This movie puts those concerns onto the big screen and the result is unsettling. All in all, a wonderful movie full of lessons and excitement. Two thumbs up!
Thomas posts on 9/18/2008 4:54:14 AM
I found that I could not get into this kind of movie. I know that it was ahead of its time but I found the story line hard to relate to. One thing that I wish that would have been touched more on is Human's and animals all have a biological clock. How come the replicants didn't see this as a form of that? The whole movie is showing how human's are playing god but don't show this comparison between how humans don't have a choice on how long they live while these machines do.
Courtney - - UMD posts on 9/14/2008 10:30:53 PM
Having only watched the movie this one time, I was intrigued by the number of gripping questions on life and what it means to be human that were incoroporated into the film. The idea on whether or not society can find itself in the position of creator, determining life and death over objects they deem non-human. . . it beg the question of whether or not our society is not already at that point, determining who can live and who can die in our current society. Our current technological globilization has already placed a small numer of companies with a large amount of power - who knows if the implications of our actions will result in a world similar to Blade Runner. I happened to like the ambiguity that was given to Deckard and his role in humanity; although we were introduced to him early on as an ex- Blade running cop. . . his early actions are unclear to us as viewers because we don't really know much about his character, with no friends or family and a various array of pictures he keeps on his piano - who is to say whether or not he really has a past. --- Touching on what Scott said in regards to the scene with Rachel and Deckard, I found it very akward and stressed. I interpreted the akward love scene in this way because Rachel was just beggining to understand her emotions has being learned and pre-programmed, so her forced vocabulary attempts at foreplay seemed less than realistic, and more like replicant - rape. At least to me,: )
Jake UMD posts on 9/14/2008 7:23:37 PM
I find what daniel said to be the most intriguing part of this movie. I feel the director was really trying to get across the idea of the Tyrell corporation and Tyrell himself thinking himself as god or the creator. Thinking he like god can create man is very disturbing. They also depict our own corporate run world being very heavily influenced by these powerful companies. Scott gives a very disturbing look into what could happen if we continue to make such technological advances without thinking of the consequences they bring.
Jorden UMD posts on 9/13/2008 7:21:48 PM
I would have to agree with Scott. There were many things to think about after watching the films and many questions that were left unanswered. I also had a feeling that Deckard might be a replicant. There were many things we did not know about him. Deckard seems to be somewhat of a mystery. After researching a bit, I have found many theories about the unicorn. Many people out there seem to believe that this shows that Deckard is a replicant. I would have to agree with them. How else would Guff have known about Deckard's dream of the unicorn? Deckard must be a replicant therefore allowing Guff to know his memories and leave the origami unicorn on the floor.
Scott UMD posts on 9/11/2008 5:37:30 PM
I see that I wasn't the only one who was initially left a little sour after watching Blade Runner. But after giving the film some real thought, I really grew on me, and I found myself thinking about the events and themes.
There were a couple of things that bothered me though. The first is that I could have sworn that Bryant said that six Replicants had escaped. One of them was electrocuted, and four of them were in the movie, but that only makes five. It really left me confused, until I looked it up on the Internet and discovered that this was just a production goof. What was really interesting is that fans of the movie, rather than accepting the error, tired to form explanations for the error such as speculating that Deckard was the sixth Replicant (just like how fans of other science-fiction shows try to find reasonable explanations for continuity errors).
Speaking of which, from the very moment that Rachel asks Deckard is he had ever performed the V-K Test on himself, I began to question whether or not Deckard could be an advanced Replicant. It turns out, that director Ridley Scott has stated that Deckard was indeed a Replicant. However Harrison Ford, who portrays and interprets the character, insists that Deckard is not. After reading some of the other posts on this site, it is clear that that debate is in full swing here too.
Forest UMD posts on 9/10/2008 9:30:05 PM
I really enjoyed the movie. It gave the impression of a cold dark polluted, overpopulated police state. I also like the theme of who is human and who is not, and what makes us human, is it our emotions or a heart beat. Maybe the replicants weren't feeling emotion maybe they were responding with a programmed response, but think about a typical day and how many of the things we do are programmed responses, this is logical if everything is cause and effect. The other question I had is, does Rachel die after 4 years and is that what the cop meant by saying it's to bad she won't live but then again who does
Click Here for Messages:
1 - 10
11 - 20
21 - 30
31 - 40
41 - 50
51 - 60
61 - 70
71 - 80
81 - 90
91 - 100
101 - 110
111 - 120
121 - 130
131 - 140
141 - 150
151 - 160
161 - 170
171 - 180
Note: the views expressed here are only those of the posters.
