Blade Runner 4K UHD (1982)

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

This is actually not true at all...it's just a persistent rumor.

Yep. The unicorn footage is not from Legend.

The aerial exteriors at the end of the theatrical cut are indeed unused takes from The Shining, though.

[cgpublic]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

I've never said my opinion is anything more than just an opinion.

Exactly, which is why opinions, your opinion and my opinion, are worthless.

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Relax, bro. I never got on a soapbox or any of that. I simply stated that the film is somewhat over-rated to me and has plenty of issues as far as me and quite a few others are concerned. And even in 1982... the themes were NOT new at all. Numerous sci-fi books and some films certainly explored the ideas that BR pertains to. C'mon. I think you're getting worked up here for nothing. What do my comments "speak about" me? Im curious. What..that I find BR underwhelming and over-rated? Yeah, I do and I know that already

It seems to me you're the one getting worked up – I'm just chilling here and killing a few minutes before my next meeting. If you're saying that there were a ton of films that projected the vibe of Blade Runner, that's not how I remember it, so unless you're going share a list of films with the impact, look and vibe of BR, I guess we'll just agree that we remember 1982 very differently.

Regarding "speak about me," that's right, and nothing more than it's your opinion, you're stating it. Opinions are never about the film, but how the person offering their opinion interprets the film. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we don't, and Ridley Scott doesn't care one way or the other because at the end of the day his work remains relevant, if not for you or me but certainly for the film industry.

Originally Posted by FilmFreakosaurus

Ridley pretty much shoved the Deckard is a replicant concept in your face in the final cut. There's nothing subtle about it... the one big weakness of his reworking of the edit. If they had left out the unicorn dream (an excised scene from Ridley's movie, Legend) then the origami unicorn left at the end could have just meant that the bounty hunter was coming for them and they better flee for their lives, or that he decided to make an appearance but in the end chose to leave them alone, or something else entirely...

You're entitled to an opinion, and the above interpretation may be valid, but until the above statement began circulating around the internet, I'm not sure people were necessarily interpreting the connection and related conclusion as a definitive statement on their own.

The bottom line is simply regardless of your opinion of Blade Runner, any opinion is just that, an opinion. If you don't get Blade Runner, that's OK, but the film speaks to many, and that is a fact that can not be denied. As far as opinions go, Scott says it best:

"Blade Runner was a disaster. It didn't play. People didn't get it. I was way ahead, is what I think it was. I knew it was really good. I just thought, 'What the hell? They just don't get it.' That was when I learned to move on and not read press. Don't read press. You can't read press - it'll destroy you."

Needless to say, Scott must have followed his own advice, because 35 years later, here we are, and both Scott and Blade Runner have endured.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

This is actually not true at all...it's just a persistent rumor.

I can't understand why people seem to have done an about turn on the Legend thing. Originally it was a fan rumour linking the two films together, but it was confirmed to be original footage in the early-mid '90s to be from a shoot behind a studio in England. The Legend unicorn footage was shoot well after Blade Runner wrapped.

It's like people get into the film and read rumours before getting up to speed, but it weird that it's become a cyclical thing.

I remember arguing with my teacher in college, she was adamant that Paul McCartney's wife's Linda father was the Kodak Eastman and not a entertainment lawyer (he was one of the reasons The Beatles split). But she wasn't having it.

[Geoff D]

Dude, I've got a widescreen VHS tape of Blade Runner which came with three little postcards of trivia, it's got to be at least 20 years old and even this mentions that the Legend unicorn thing is just that: a legend with no basis in fact.

[Shalashaska]

Still better off being left out though. The writers, producers, actors and author of the original novel all seem to agree. Mostly everyone but Scott.

[dallywhitty]

This thread breaks my heart.

[StingingVelvet]

Lots of heretics in this thread that will be purged when culling time comes around.

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

The writers, producers, actors and author of the original novel all seem to agree.

You sure seem to have a lot of interest in those people's opinions.

I just watch the movie and decide how I feel about it.

[Shalashaska]

Originally Posted by Doctorossi

You sure seem to have a lot of interest in those people's opinions.

I just watch the movie and decide how I feel about it.

Funny you say that, a poster above's telling me my opinion doesn't matter because the consensus says otherwise.

Regardless, I haven't mentioned anything about other people's opinions outside of that post. Are you confusing me for FilmFreakosaurus?

[Doctorossi]

Originally Posted by Shalashaska

Funny you say that, a poster above's telling me my opinion doesn't matter because the consensus says otherwise.

Regardless, I haven't mentioned anything about other people's opinions outside of that post. Are you confusing me for FilmFreakosaurus?

I apologize- I am!

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by cgpublic

You're entitled to an opinion, and the above interpretation may be valid, but until the above statement began circulating around the internet, I'm not sure people were necessarily interpreting the connection and related conclusion as a definitive statement on their own.

I thought I was literally the only one who agreed with this. I don't find that The Final Cut pushes that definitive conclusion at all, and never have. There are so many ways to take that unicorn scene. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it's a "vision" that Deckard is having. Nor that it's a memory that's been implanted in Deckard. Or even necessarily that that image is in Deckard's mind in the first place. The scene quite literally fades from Deckard to the unicorn and back to Deckard with NO other context whatsoever. Maybe it's something that only we, as the audience, are supposed to see or perceive or associate with Deckard alone at the piano. Maybe a human feeling an emotion from a single note on a piano is something of a "unicorn" in this world...the last man who still allows feeling into the otherwise sterile environment we're shown in the rest of the film. And maybe Gaffe understands this about Deckard, leaving the unicorn as a symbol...a symbol only we have seen, but one Deckard understands intellectually.

Is it a stretch? Sure. But no more so than assuming that a random fade MUST be a memory or vision AND that Deckard has this in his head, AND that Gaffe knows about this implant and then leaves him the unicorn to tell Deckard that he knows he's a replicant...a replicant type that's never once mentioned (or even hinted at) anywhere else in the film, since he apparently doesn't have a four-year lifespan. Plenty of ways to look at the "obvious" unicorn scene IMO.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

I thought I was literally the only one who agreed with this. I don't find that The Final Cut pushes that definitive conclusion at all, and never have. There are so many ways to take that unicorn scene. There's absolutely nothing to suggest that it's a "vision" that Deckard is having. Nor that it's a memory that's been implanted in Deckard. Or even necessarily that that image is in Deckard's mind in the first place. The scene quite literally fades from Deckard to the unicorn and back to Deckard with NO other context whatsoever. Maybe it's something that only we, as the audience, are supposed to see or perceive or associate with Deckard alone at the piano. Maybe a human feeling an emotion from a single note on a piano is something of a "unicorn" in this world...the last man who still allows feeling into the otherwise sterile environment we're shown in the rest of the film. And maybe Gaffe understands this about Deckard, leaving the unicorn as a symbol...a symbol only we have seen, but one Deckard understands intellectually.

Is it a stretch? Sure. But no more so than assuming that a random fade MUST be a memory or vision AND that Deckard has this in his head, AND that Gaffe knows about this implant and then leaves him the unicorn to tell Deckard that he knows he's a replicant...a replicant type that's never once mentioned (or even hinted at) anywhere else in the film, since he apparently doesn't have a four-year lifespan. Plenty of ways to look at the "obvious" unicorn scene IMO.

You're describing the way the scene plays in the Director's Cut. In the Final Cut, the closeups of Deckard's eyes indicate that the unicorn is something that he is thinking about. That said, I still agree that the film by itself suggests, rather than firmly states, that Deckard is a replicant.

However, Ridley Scott has firmly stated that's what it's supposed to mean.

To be honest, I still don't know how I feel about it. It doesn't really make sense when you break it down. But I actually wish he'd been able to get that unicorn scene in the original version. That way, he wouldn't have had to make such a big deal about adding it back in, and it would have always been part of the conversation.

[StingingVelvet]

He's thinking about it because he knows that is what Rachel is programmed to dream about nearby, and Gaff knows she's programmed that way too which is why his message of letting her go is a unicorn. That's the interpretation someone in the BD documentary gives, which I quite like. Deckard not being human ruins the movie for me, so this is the best interpretation.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by BNex99

You're describing the way the scene plays in the Director's Cut.

Well, either actually applies...whether it's a fade from a wide shot of Deckard or from a close-up, my point still stands.

Originally Posted by BNex99

However, Ridley Scott has firmly stated that's what it's supposed to mean.

And that's good for Ridley Scott, but I'm not one of those who think that a director's interpretation of a film is the only possible way of seeing it. Otherwise, I'd just accept that Greedo shot first and move on. Yeah, not happening. lol

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by StingingVelvet

Lots of heretics in this thread that will be purged when culling time comes around.

You mean those of us that dare find Blade Runner rather "meh"? Are we the heretics? If not, nevermind.

As for Deckard being a replicant - wasnt there a specific scene in his apartment that pretty much confirmed this? I sure thought so.

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

As for Deckard being a replicant - wasnt there a specific scene in his apartment that pretty much confirmed this? I sure thought so.

Eh...there's this whole thread thing above...

[s2mikey]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Eh...there's this whole thread thing above...

Yeah - got it. I was referring to something different than the Unicorn issue. The scene I refer to is quick but I caught it for sure. Its

[Show spoiler]Right before he and Rachel leave his apartment and his face is briefly head-on with the camera you can see the glowing eyes. It sure didnt look like a camera artifact or just lighting.... it appeared to me like he had the same eye-glow as Rachel and other replicants. Unless Im missing something?

[Croweyes1121]

Originally Posted by s2mikey

Yeah - got it. I was referring to something different than the Unicorn issue. The scene I refer to is quick but I caught it for sure. Its

[Show spoiler]Right before he and Rachel leave his apartment and his face is briefly head-on with the camera you can see the glowing eyes. It sure didnt look like a camera artifact or just lighting.... it appeared to me like he had the same eye-glow as Rachel and other replicants. Unless Im missing something?

Ah, that's right after his line "No. No, I wouldn't. I owe you one. But somebody would". He's out of focus and in the shadows behind Rachel, but his eyes glow similarly to how the replicants' eyes do. Still, I'd hardly say that's in any way definitive - if anything, it's probably even less so than the unicorn scene as, as far as I know, there's not even confirmation if that one was intentional or not. I think it was more something that fans picked up after the fact.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by Croweyes1121

Ah, that's right after his line "No. No, I wouldn't. I owe you one. But somebody would". He's out of focus and in the shadows behind Rachel, but his eyes glow similarly to how the replicants' eyes do. Still, I'd hardly say that's in any way definitive - if anything, it's probably even less so than the unicorn scene as, as far as I know, there's not even confirmation if that one was intentional or not. I think it was more something that fans picked up after the fact.

Right? That's there simply because they were using that lighting for Sean Young's eyes first and foremost, and even though they kept Harrison out of focus as much as possible you can still clearly see the same effect on his peepers as we know. That they didn't choose to erase it for the Final Cut given all the other 'goofs' that were taken care of speaks volumes for Ridley's opinion of Deck-a-rep.

[chip75]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Right? That's there simply because they were using that lighting for Sean Young's eyes first and foremost, and even though they kept Harrison out of focus as much as possible you can still clearly see the same effect on his peepers as we know. That they didn't choose to erase it for the Final Cut given all the other 'goofs' that were taken care of speaks volumes for Ridley's opinion of Deck-a-rep.

The glowing eyes of Deckard always seemed a bit on the nose (or slightly above it in this case), it's a bit of a gimmick. He may as well have a big neon sign above his head. The lighting on Harrison was very much intentional.

Generally I prefer the ambiguity of the whole thing, which is one of the pluses of having multiple cuts so readily available, but I think if you're watching The Final Cut as much as irks some fans, for all its flaws - Deckard is a replicant.