Blade Runner Message Board
Kristin Juntunen-Cst 3030-UMD posts on 6/24/2009 3:25:25 PM
It took me a few times to get through the movie and actually understand it. I'm not much of a science fiction buff, so this movie was hard for me to grasp. Things that confused the most was why the character Gaff was so mysterious and always leave those oragmi animals! I was also a little taken back by the love affair of Deckard and Rachel. It just didn't seem right. After reading more into Bladerunner I found out that Deckard may in fact be a replicant himself, which makes the relationship make a bit more sense. My favorite part by far is the ending. When Roy is dying he's says some of the most important dialouge in the entire movie. It is something like, "my memmories will be lost as tears in rain". This is a very realistic statement. When people are gone there memmories are lost forever. You can document them thru picture, writing, movies, but it will never truely be what it was when that person was living. You can only hope to leave an impact somehow on someone that could continue your own legacy.
Stephanie Rekuski- CSt 3030, UMD posts on 6/15/2009 10:20:13 PM
I found this movie very interesting. The part of the movie that I enjoyed the most was figuring out if Deckard is a replicant or not. After finishing the movie and searching the web about this movie, I am still not certain if I really know the answer. Like some of the websites have indicated, I too have come to the conclusion that there are various levels of replicants. It is evident that Leon is one of the most powerful and high leveled replicants, other than Roy. However, I also found it ironic that Deckard was a “Blade Runner.” How is it possible that Deckard is both a Blade Runner, whose job is to retire the replicants, yet there, is question that Deckard may be a replicant himself? Yet at the same time, this is what drew my attention and liking to the movie. I believe that Deckard is a replicant, but he is a much lower level than that of Roy. I find that quite obvious during the last few scenes in the movie when Roy and Deckard are having their fighting scene. Roy is much more powerful and forceful than Deckard. Roy also doesn’t seem to feel are much pain. This is evident when Roy puts the nail threw his hand to use as a weapon. Therefore, Roy’s pain tolerance is greater than that of Deckard. In addition, Deckard seems to have greater emotional sense than that of Roy. This can be illustrated with his love for Rachel. I believe that Rachel and Deckard are that of the same replicant level. They both do not hold much more than human powers yet hold an emotional connection between the two of them. One question that I find hard to answer myself is, how does Deckard not understand that he is a replicant? Isn’t it his job to retire them? Why has Deckard not taken the eye test himself?
Grant Johnson - UMD posts on 5/29/2009 2:15:28 PM
I had to watch the movie a couple time to really get into it. I didn't quite know what to make of the movie the first time I watched it. I didn't even know whether I enjoyed it or not. After I watched it the second time however, I came to appreciate it as a science fiction movie. There really are some deep, under-lying themes in this movie. One being the ethical issue of genetic engineering. There is a lack of natural life, with animals themselves being mostly artificial. This corporate engineering seems to have led to a dystopian society, encouraging the travel to the off-world colonies.
One big question is whether Deckard is a replicant or not. His emotion-driven actions give the impression that he is human. The only reason I might think that he is a replicant is the issue with the unicorn. Early in the movie, he has a dream or vision about a unicorn. At the end of the movie, his partner left an origami of a unicorn. This makes me believe his partner knew of this vision as well, possibly explaining that Deckard's vision was an implant.
Brandon posts on 5/10/2009 7:36:36 PM
Overall, I thought the movie was so-so. It never really grabbed my attention to where I didn’t want to miss any of it. A lot of this discussion has been about Deckard and whether he is or is not a replicant. While I also have my views on this subject, I would rather talk about one of the more underlying themes that happened to catch my attention. Scott’s portrayal of large corporations as destructive and greedy sort of hits home for me since the setting for this movie isn’t too far into the future. The drive to become wealthy through rapid innovation can in fact have a impact on our world and environment that does more harm than good. In the movie, almost all animals seems to be extinct or on the verge of becoming extinct. You only see a few (snake, owl, and dove) and these animals remind the viewer as well as the characters about losses suffered from a corporation dominated world. Also, most of the pictures of the cities are gloomy and dark and it always seems to be raining. The streets are fully of garbage and debris which has taken the place of grass and tress which are almost nonexistent. With all the talk about the environment within the past couple years; this theme is more prevalent than ever to me. What if Scott’s views are correct and this is how our world will look if people and companies continue to be destructive. Not exactly a bright view of the near future to me.
J Dunsmoor @ UMD posts on 5/10/2009 5:56:18 PM
With all the talk about Deckard being a replicant I find it interesting that as a blade runnner he needs to identify the lack of emotion in other replicants. So even though he possibly is a replicant he at least has more emotional awareness than the other replicants so that he can identify and retire them! Clearly if Deckard is a replicant he is the most advanced with full memories and emotional awareness althouhgh he is not the strongest he is definitely the most human. Maybe this is why he is attracted to Rachel becuase they are the most similar. They are both more human than replicant.
Noel Warmbold-UMD posts on 5/5/2009 1:42:02 AM
I really liked Blade Runner. The movie depicts a future that is somewhat dark and desolate, which seems to be a recurring theme in many movies that are set in the future. There seems to be a debate about whether Deckard is a replicant or not. The thought never crossed my mind until now. It makes sense that Deckard could be a replicant because of the type of job he has, as a Blade Runner. You need to have minimal emotions to do that job and that replicants are programmed with certain emotions. Deckard wasn't as strong as the other replicants, but he could have simply been made less superior so as to appear more human. It would make sense that they would have a replicant hunt down other replicants due to the fact that humans created them as slaves anyway. Replicants are disposable to humans. So why risk a humans life when they can risk a replicants. I found the ending to be sad, because you truly get to understand Roy right before he dies. You see that he is developing his own emotions and you see how badly he wanted to live because of the tears that stream down his face before he dies. Overall, Blade Runner is a good movie that really gets people thinking about the future to come.
Cameron Lanyk @ UMD posts on 5/4/2009 9:44:04 PM
Their seems to be a lot of discussion as to whether Deckard is a replicant. My impression from the film is that this is not the case. Deckard appears very apathetic and withdrawn when approached in the opening scene of the film. Could a replicant become that despondent from past experiences? Perhaps - the newest generation of replicants are advertised as more human than humans.
Why would he have to be blackmailed into helping? If he were a replicant I think he would have agreed to help, if for no other reason than to deflect any questions about his origin. Who would suspect an accomplished replicant hunter of being himself a replicant. Many folks on here make reference to the intimate scene between Deckard and Rachael. I think this scene further reinforces the notion that he is human. To become overcome with passion is a uniquely human experience. I feel even the latest Nexus replicants would have a difficult time trying to imitate that kind of emotional response.
Lukas J @ UMD posts on 4/21/2009 6:20:49 PM
To me this film was entertaining in the sense that it left me with questions about the world in the film, my life and world in general. It seems to be different from more contemporary science fiction films in that it depicts a dark and corrupted world, one that is stratified and retrofitted, with new built on top of old. One of the questions raised in my mind is our definition of life and humanness. What separates us from animals (or Replicants)? Is it as Pris observes “I think therefore I am” or more along the lines of what the film seems to perpetuate, in that humans are human because they have emotions. That is what the VK test in the movie set out to prove, that Replicants were not humans because they lacked emotional development. Thus when Replicants begin to rebel and develop emotion, it makes sense that they need to be retired, to keep the definition of what is a human intact. Overall my first impressions of the film were fairly negative, but as I begin to think and read more I started to appreciate it more for the thematic and content elements.
Lyle Solem @ UMD posts on 4/16/2009 12:30:35 PM
Blade Runner was not at all what I thought it would be. I thought going in that it was going to be more of an action film, but it turned out to be more of a character piece. What really stood out to me was that the replicants are not like the androids or clones in other sci-fi movies I have seen, they are much more human. They have human emotions and desires; they want to live longer and are angry and sad that their lives will expire. You can see how upset Rachel is by the revelation that she is a replicant, all of her memories and her life in whole turn out to be a lie and her life loses meaning. Deckard's character is interesting too, the movie never really explains why he is so despondant or what his circumstances are. It seems like he has a hard time retiring replicants that seem so human and he can't deal with it anymore. The bleak outlook of the characters and the way the film is lighted and presented give the film a dark feel, and the end leaves everything in the air and open for you to interpret however you want to. I think it was a good movie and one that made you think a lot more than you expected.
Melissa Suhonen-UMD posts on 4/9/2009 11:23:24 AM
I was not really excited to watch this movie because I had never heard of it and when it comes to science fiction I have never really been a fan of futuristic worlds and space travel but as I began to watch it, I was become more intrigued because of all the questions that started to prop up. Right from the beginning I was taken aback by the climate and overall appearance of the earth. It was dark, cold and depressing and I began to feel right away a sense of sadness, which I felt through the entire movie. I also noticed that the replicants just wanted answers and a chance to live longer. My thoughts were reinforced by the essay that was done on what it means to be human. When I noticed that Rachel showed great sadness when she realized that the memories she had were not really memories. Even though she was a relipcant, she had emotions just like a human so what is to say that she really wasn’t? I also was surprised with the sadness and desperation that Roy had, wanting to know his purpose and wanting more life. He also started feeling guilt over the things he had done, so as he got “old” he did start to develop his own emotional responses so I truly believed he was become human. What did everyone fear? At the end when Roy saved Deckard, he wanted him to live so Roy also started to feel compassion. When I watched the scene with Roy and Tyrell, I instantly thought it was just like God and a fallen angle all dressed in white and black. I instantly thought that Roy was asking his God for forgiveness and wanted to do more and Tyrell stated that he has done great things but his time has ended, just like I think God would say to me if I were to ask the same question. To my surprise, I was not the only one who began thinking this and there are even articles on just that. I returned the movie, but want to re-watch it so I can notice more of the chess scene because after reading about the significance of that, I want to see it again. I can defiantly see how religion is depicted in this film and although there has been some criticism regarding this films purpose (one site said that it was just a way to convert Christians because it depicted Satan was more powerful then God), I think it represents our struggle for answers and also shows we basically all have the same questions: “Why are we here?”
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.
