Blade Runner Message Board

Post to this discussion forum Return to Blade Runner book reviews

Simmo141-UMD posts on 11/29/2009 2:42:19 PM I thought this movie was interesting because everyday we meet people who are "fake" and wearing masks trying to be something different. And still, today, people try to shun those who are different from the "normal". Most people also believe in a "creater/father/God" figure. Tyrell is this image to the replicas. The part that made me think the most was Gaff's character. I'm still trying to decide if he was a replica or human. He was always so distant and unemotional. At the end, was he in support of Deckard and Rachel, or was he intending on going after them.
Joe Norman posts on 10/22/2009 2:43:11 AM I absolutely love the symbolism in this movie. Most importantly, the question it begs; What does it mean to be human? Personally, it makes me wonder how easily everything we think we know could just be an illusion. One reason this film really piqued my interest is because it relates a lot to a conspiracy theory I've been reading a lot about. I'm not saying I believe theory one way or another, but the similarities are interesting. The theory asserts that extraterrestrials called "reptilians" (similar to replicants!) came to earth and created humans to mine gold for them. This is similar to Blade Runner in that replicants were created in order to do work for the humans. Another similarity is that the reptilians can shape-shift to look like humans, just like replicants look exactly like humans. The film also has a wealth of religious symbolism. The replicants come "down" to earth, similar to angels coming down from heaven. Tyrell is a representation of a flawed God and Roy represents a Christ-like figure. I found it interesting that Tyrell's bed is a replica of Pope John Paul II. It is my opinion that this film can tell humans a lot about ourselves. It shows our oppression through the symbolism of eyes throughout the movie; that we are being watched. Rachel is the character that tells us we shouldn't believe everything we think is reality and we can be manipulated to believe things that aren't true quite easily. As for the idea of Deckard being a replicant, I believe Ridley Scott intentions were for him to be one. One of my biggest reasons for this belief is the unicorn dream; it shows that Gaff has access to his mind and memories. Another reason is the fact that Deckard's eyes glow like the other replicants in one part of the movie. Although I do believe Deckard is meant to be a replicant, I also think the question doesn't have a definitive answer. It goes back to the original question; what does it mean to be human?
Amanda R (UMD) posts on 10/15/2009 5:00:43 PM While watching the movie, it didn't even occur to me that Deckard might not be human. It wasn't until later that I realized that might not be the case. I believe, though, that his biological classification of human or replicant is by far secondary to his own decision about his humanity. It remains ambiguous to us because he has not decided yet. (For a more practical explanation, authors and writers often like to leave a little ambiguity- how else would they create a sequel?) Even if the director did confirm that Deckard is a replicant, that doesn't necessarily change his opinion about his own humanity. There have been a few posts that have touched on the religious themes throughout the movie. I thought that this was a very interesting layer to a dystopian (post-apocalyptic?) society. One element/character that I am puzzled about is Gaff. He and Deckard are supposedly partners, but Gaff does nothing, really, except tag along and throw out some cryptic lines now and then. Oh, and make very elaborate origami animals out of scraps of paper. I can't decide if he is there to keep an eye on Deckard (maybe Deckard is a replicant and Gaff is deciding whether or not he needs to be retired?), or if he is there as kind of a guardian angel figure (maybe to help guide Deckard in his decisions about his humanity?). Gaff could take on either of these roles whether Deckard is a human or a replicant. I am curious to find out how the term 'Blade Runner' came about. This is merely for my own, personal curiosity. To 'run someone through' with a blade requires a bladed weapon. As far as I can tell, Deckard and the other Blade Runners use (guns or hand-to-hand combat, if absolutely necessary). Am I looking for more meaning where there isn't any? Again, this more of a personal interest comment, but I do like that JF Sebastian lives in the Bradbury Building. A nod to Ray Bradbury and dystopian works, maybe?


Heidi Akins (UMD) posts on 10/8/2009 12:58:14 AM Rachael was my favorite character. I felt sorry for her for feeling so lost and alone. Her having memories implanted from Tyrell’s niece must have been confusing and misleading for her. They attempted to make her “human”, but she could never truly enjoy what it means to be human. She added a different perspective than the other characters did. I also believe that Deckard was a replicant. Who better to “retire” replicant’s than a replicant! I also thought the music in this film was very effective. It was dark and eerie and it creeped me out many times (especially since my fiancé wasn’t home with me to watch it!). The tone and ambiance of the film did a very nice job making the audience feel like they are actual watching the future (even though it seems a little silly now that it is 2009 and the movie is set in 2017, but you never know I guess). Overall, I enjoyed the movie and I believe that someday we just might have genetically engineered people. This movie will hopefully heed that warning.
Shawna Longrie (UMD) posts on 10/7/2009 11:33:34 PM I found some interesting information regarding whether or not Deckard was really a replicant. The director finally revealed that Deckard really was a replicant. Although that tidbit of knowledge does shed some light on bits of the film, it doesn't really altogether change anything. It doesn't really seem to matter that Deckard was a replicant. Over all I thought this film was very well made and I liked the theme of it. I'm sure it had a different meanings to other people but to me it signified the importance of living each day to its fullest. The replicants spent so much time looking for a way to live longer that they couldn't even really enjoy the last bits of life they had. I thought it was great how Deckard realized that in the end.
jocylne posts on 10/4/2009 4:56:30 PM It’s completely possible that Deckard was a replicant, but in the end it hardly matters. Gaff’s last words to Deckard (it’s too bad she won’t live, but then again, who does?) and the origami unicorn could certainly be evidence that he is a replicant, but its purpose could be to simply serve the development of themes, which were complex and require critical thought. My understanding is not well-advanced, but there are strong suggestions which might fall under the theme of humanity. The importance memories play was intriguing. If one has memories then he could develop emotions. This raises the question of how the power of the imagination might alter one’s memories and thus their humanity. Also, the point is made that all die and the memory of one’s life is lost like tears in rain. Many aren’t particularly fond of the idea of one’s life disappearing into time, especially Roy. Pondering Gaff’s last words, one might conclude that life is neither here nor there because all have a shelf-life. This brings to mind the words of Roy, created to slave, “living in fear, that’s what it is to be a slave!”
Sarah T (UMD) posts on 9/30/2009 10:32:05 PM The first time I watched this film I fell asleep. I found it to be extremely slow and dull. After I read the plot-line online I began to gain an understanding of the symbolism in the film along with the cinematography chosen by Ridley Scott. Some of the scenes were unnecessarily long and others could have been explained in greater detail. The final "chase" scene between Deckard and Roy was too long and Scott could have put more emphasis on the fact that Roy's life was coming to its end. I do not think the film is bad by any means, and I do think it requires multiple viewings to fully understand its symbolism and depth.
Jarett Lehner-UMD posts on 9/30/2009 9:04:45 PM I can't get over the such rich symbolism this movie has. If the movie had been shot without all of the religious and humanity symbolism, the movie would be pretty dull. In my opinion, it would have been a complete washout. As it was when my roommate first saw the movie. He didn't notice any of the symbolism and he ended up not liking the film. When it was explained to him, it was like he had re-seen the film for the first time. The symbolism is quite ingenious in my opinion. While on one hand you have the replicants are searching for answers about their origins and their potential humanity, we get to see a human (Deckard) struggling with his own humanity trying to figure out if he really is human. The replicants quest deals with religious symbolism, having them trying to find out if they are meant to be human by seeking out their maker and attempt to progress through the bible, such as: the encounter of Deckard and Zhora (Adam and Eve), talking to their maker or their "god" (as the people in the book of genesis did) and finally when Roy dies for the sins of the replicants (as Jesus did). Deckard is dealing with his humanity the opposite way the replicants are. It is initially believed that he is a human, but through his actions/interactions and the origami, it could be guessed that he is a replicant (the origami relate to his mood/feelings and even relate to his dream and ending of the movie).
Lisa Mattson posts on 9/30/2009 8:20:57 PM I think there is more evidence pointing toward Deckard being a replicant than there is for him being human. Deckard seems to be questioning his humanity throughout the movie. The fact that Rachel believes that she is human and has "memories" of childhood shows that anyone in this movie could in fact be a replicant. If replicants are used for the most dangerous jobs, it makes sense that they would use a replicant to hunt down and retire other replicants. They would have to give Deckard false human memories so that he could kill his own kind.
Joshua C (UMD) posts on 9/22/2009 11:47:53 PM Spoiler alert! Don't read if you haven't watched the movie! My roommate and I had a long discussion about the scene where Roy meets Tyrel. Every piece of it seems significant. Chess is a game of kings, and this would imply that Sebastian and Tyrel are both kings, which makes sense since Sebastian designed the replicant brain and Tryel owns Tyrel corp, the manufacturers of the replicants. When Sebastian tells Tyrel he is there to move a chess piece in their game, he moves so that Tyrels king is in check. This is Sebastians subtle way of telling Tyrel that he is in danger, since he doesn’t outright tell Tyrel he has a replicant with him. There is also the fact that Roy wants to go to Tyrel because he wants to meet his maker. When someone is going to “meet their maker,” it means they are going to die, and Roy is dying throughout the movie. Roy then asks Tyrel “what do you ask your maker?” he is obviously trying to show how monumental this would be if it were a human meeting whatever creator they believe in. Meeting his creator is a religious experience for Roy, so he asked for forgiveness for his sins. When Tyrel tries to tell Roy that he is an amazing creation and that his sins aren’t important, my guess at Roys logic is that since his sins aren’t important, it won’t matter that he kills his creator when Tyrel won’t give him what he wants. He essentially loses faith in his creators because they aren’t as all powerful as he thought they were. The rest of the movie is similar to the Passion, with Roy putting a nail through his hand and dying at the end.
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.