Blade Runner 4K UHD (1982)

[Larry_O]

The Roddenberry Archive thing?

That whole thing is beyond me. I thought that whole thing was supposed to be an actual archive, where they're using CGI and AI to create walkthroughs of sets and virtual props for people to interact with in a way they'd otherwise never get to

And now it's like a bunch of weird super-expensive fan films that are mostly about following Kirk and Spock through the afterlife and deepfaking Nimoy's head onto other people's bodies and de-aging Shatner's face and posing them like action figures to make people cry about them being dead/not-dead? It's all sort of vaguely off-putting in how it's not only openly manipulative, but it's sort of trying to rewrite both real life and fictional history at the same time through not-great VFX and AI applications?

If it's bad when 20th Century does it to Ian Holm, and it's bad when Lucasfilm did it to Peter Cushing, it should be bad when people do it to Leonard Nimoy. And it is. It's weird as hell, in fact.

To bring it back to Blade Runner - the digital de-aging of Rachel in 2049 was weird and off-putting too, and I think it was supposed to be. I didn't like seeing it, and I didn't want to look at it for very long (even though the effect was pretty good, mostly because they made sure not to have it emote or speak very much). But leave it to Blade Runner to deploy that effect in a way that actually uses the uncanny, not-right feeling underneath its use to its textual benefit.

[ghostof82]

That White Dragon fan edit is appalling. I hate this kind of stuff. Pacing will be all over the place,sub-par CGI... I'm sure Ridley Scott would be livid about this kind of thing being done to his masterpiece, and with good reason. The hubris of fans thinking they have the right to do this. Leave it alone. I watched the Zora's Dance scene utterly aghast.

[BNex99]

Originally Posted by Larry_O

To bring it back to Blade Runner - the digital de-aging of Rachel in 2049 was weird and off-putting too, and I think it was supposed to be. I didn't like seeing it, and I didn't want to look at it for very long (even though the effect was pretty good, mostly because they made sure not to have it emote or speak very much). But leave it to Blade Runner to deploy that effect in a way that actually uses the uncanny, not-right feeling underneath its use to its textual benefit.

And at least in that case, the actor was still alive to consent to her likeness being used (though she apparently expressed disappointment and reservations about it later).

[starmike]

From someone on bsky:

Leonard Nimoy portrayed as a polar express cartoon on his deathbed, it's what he would have wanted ��

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by BNex99

And at least in that case, the actor was still alive to consent to her likeness being used (though she apparently expressed disappointment and reservations about it later).

Speaking of... Sean Young uploaded a video recently about her experience working on 2049. It's real candid, fly-on-the-wall stuff and captures her time in Budapest while filming was underway.

The Making of Bladerunner 2049 - YouTube

[Larry_O]

Originally Posted by ghostof82

I'm sure Ridley Scott would be livid about this kind of thing being done to his masterpiece,

For what it's worth, I'm sure Ridley going ahead and brattily inserting shots and VFX that definitively answer, without a doubt, the question of whether Deckard is or isn't a replicant - despite the fact nobody else who worked on the film ever wanted that question definitively answered (and told him as much for like 30 years every time he brought up the option like an eager puppy with a ball in his mouth) - is probably more of a pain in the ass to everyone involved with Blade Runner, than some obsessive dork schlub who spent the last 10 years trying to make Syd Mead's concept art dance, possibly getting 2000 views tops on the torrent circuit, before everyone forgets it ever existed five minutes after clapping eyes on it.

Fans got hubris. Directors got hubris. Everyone's got an Avid workstation on their phone now, too. I think it's less about whether someone thinks they have the right to do real dumb bs to a movie, it's more about whether that dumb bs ends up removing everyone else's ability to see the original version, and to a lesser extent, whether that dumb bs sucks or not.

[DR Herbert West]

#ridleywasright

[Larry_O]

Nah, one of Ridley's biggest problems as a filmmaker (a problem that's only been exacerbated in the last 15+ years as he's worked faster and faster and thought less and less about what he's making) is that he very clearly does not have the tightest grasp on theme, and doesn't quite understand what his movies are saying as he's making them, - which is partially why he has so many Director's Cuts.

The fact the whole of his reasoning for making Deckard definitively a Replicant in his "Final Cut" was (and only ever has been) solely "wouldn't it be a cool twist" shows he never quite got the point of what Fancher, Peoples, Ford, Hauer, Dick... basically everyone else was actually trying to do.

He made it look amazing, though.

[mrjeff]

Originally Posted by Larry_O

The Roddenberry Archive thing?

That whole thing is beyond me. I thought that whole thing was supposed to be an actual archive, where they're using CGI and AI to create walkthroughs of sets and virtual props for people to interact with in a way they'd otherwise never get to

And now it's like a bunch of weird super-expensive fan films that are mostly about following Kirk and Spock through the afterlife and deepfaking Nimoy's head onto other people's bodies and de-aging Shatner's face and posing them like action figures to make people cry about them being dead/not-dead? It's all sort of vaguely off-putting in how it's not only openly manipulative, but it's sort of trying to rewrite both real life and fictional history at the same time through not-great VFX and AI applications?

If it's bad when 20th Century does it to Ian Holm, and it's bad when Lucasfilm did it to Peter Cushing, it should be bad when people do it to Leonard Nimoy. And it is. It's weird as hell, in fact.

To bring it back to Blade Runner - the digital de-aging of Rachel in 2049 was weird and off-putting too, and I think it was supposed to be. I didn't like seeing it, and I didn't want to look at it for very long (even though the effect was pretty good, mostly because they made sure not to have it emote or speak very much). But leave it to Blade Runner to deploy that effect in a way that actually uses the uncanny, not-right feeling underneath its use to its textual benefit.

My stance on it: I rarely think it looks good, but I'm ok with it if the older actor is involved and endorses it. I do not like it when they use it for a dead actor (Peter Cushing, Ian Holm, Leonard Nimoy). So it's a split decision on that Rodenberry Archive thing!

[oubukibun]

Aw, that Sean Young behind-the-scenes reminds me of the golden age of DVD documentaries.

She is so fab in BR. Her moment with "Memories of Green" by Vangelis when she shows up at Deckard's apartment is just movie heaven—one of my favorite wordless performance moments ever.

[DR Herbert West]

Originally Posted by Larry_O

Nah, one of Ridley's biggest problems as a filmmaker (a problem that's only been exacerbated in the last 15+ years as he's worked faster and faster and thought less and less about what he's making) is that he very clearly does not have the tightest grasp on theme, and doesn't quite understand what his movies are saying as he's making them, - which is partially why he has so many Director's Cuts.

The fact the whole of his reasoning for making Deckard definitively a Replicant in his "Final Cut" was (and only ever has been) solely "wouldn't it be a cool twist" shows he never quite got the point of what Fancher, Peoples, Ford, Hauer, Dick... basically everyone else was actually trying to do.

He made it look amazing, though.

Neat.

[Larry_O]

Disagreeing with you about Ridley Scott is neat, sure, I guess. Hadn't really thought about it before but yeah, okay.

[Egons Ghost]

Originally Posted by Larry_O

Nah, one of Ridley's biggest problems as a filmmaker (a problem that's only been exacerbated in the last 15+ years as he's worked faster and faster and thought less and less about what he's making) is that he very clearly does not have the tightest grasp on theme, and doesn't quite understand what his movies are saying as he's making them, - which is partially why he has so many Director's Cuts.

The fact the whole of his reasoning for making Deckard definitively a Replicant in his "Final Cut" was (and only ever has been) solely "wouldn't it be a cool twist" shows he never quite got the point of what Fancher, Peoples, Ford, Hauer, Dick... basically everyone else was actually trying to do.

He made it look amazing, though.

Am I completely dumb in thinking that it was still basically ambiguous? I honestly haven’t watched Final Cut since the cinema release in 2007. And my memory of 2049 was that the issue was evaded?

[milo bloom]

Deckard is not a replicant. Every fight with the known replicants is a stuggle for him.

In BR2049, Officer K has to put in a little work to take down Bautista in the opening fight, but he's clearly in the game and making it work.

Deckard manages to survive, but he needed an assist with Leon and he only survived Batty because he was dying and decided to stop fighting. The only two he handles on his own are Priss and Zhora, the "weaker" female models.

Maybe he's enhanced or something, but he's not a replicant. The whole movie loses it's impact if he's just another skinjob.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by Egons Ghost

Am I completely dumb in thinking that it was still basically ambiguous? I honestly haven’t watched Final Cut since the cinema release in 2007. And my memory of 2049 was that the issue was evaded?

Deckard said in 2049 that they were hunted, so not ambiguous.

[starmike]

Originally Posted by milo bloom

Maybe he's enhanced or something, but he's not a replicant. The whole movie loses it's impact if he's just another skinjob.

I think you missed the point. Being able to fabricate people is the real-world equivalent of aliens coming to us. It throws the balance of what we've known about ourselves, religion, and evolution out the window. Replicants having kids complicates that even more.

[milo bloom]

Originally Posted by starmike

I think you missed the point. Being able to fabricate people is the real-world equivalent of aliens coming to us. It throws the balance of what we've known about ourselves, religion, and evolution out the window. Replicants having kids complicates that even more.

Those are great points and legitimate facets of the story, but Deckard's journey as a human is what we're watching in the forefront.

[dallywhitty]

Originally Posted by Egons Ghost

Am I completely dumb in thinking that it was still basically ambiguous? I honestly haven’t watched Final Cut since the cinema release in 2007. And my memory of 2049 was that the issue was evaded?

It's sort of addressed in 2049. Wallace suggests that Deckard is a replicant who was designed to fall for Rachael and procreate... only to immediately afterwards be like, "That is if you were designed." Villeneuve wanted to maintain the ambiguity. I've often said I reckon Ridley would've been more explicit had he directed the film as originally intended, and I recall him saying that the story of 2049 only makes sense if Deckard is a replicant. For one thing, would a human have been able to survive in a post-nuclear Vegas?

[Rolling Dice]

Originally Posted by milo bloom

Deckard is not a replicant. Every fight with the known replicants is a stuggle for him.

In BR2049, Officer K has to put in a little work to take down Bautista in the opening fight, but he's clearly in the game and making it work.

Deckard manages to survive, but he needed an assist with Leon and he only survived Batty because he was dying and decided to stop fighting. The only two he handles on his own are Priss and Zhora, the "weaker" female models.

Maybe he's enhanced or something, but he's not a replicant. The whole movie loses it's impact if he's just another skinjob.

The male replicants are combat models, that could be why Deckard struggles with them despite being a replicant himself (if he actually is)?

[Larry_O]

Originally Posted by Egons Ghost

Am I completely dumb in thinking that it was still basically ambiguous? I honestly haven’t watched Final Cut since the cinema release in 2007. And my memory of 2049 was that the issue was evaded?

Nah, Scott went out of his way to insert shots to eliminate ambiguity because he always thought it would be a "cool twist" if he was definitively a robot man. In the Final Cut, Deckard is a replicant - but you're not "completely dumb" at all if you didn't catch the ambiguity getting shaved off, either, because it's not like he went George Lucas with it, either.

In 2049, the issue is completely evaded, you're right - it was a thing on the press tour even, Villeneuve repeatedly said "we made the movie so it doesn't actually matter which version you watched, it will work regardless."

The problem isn't so much with people watching having an opinion, that's part of the fun (as it were, Blade Runner isn't really the most FUN of movies, LOL) it's when the guy who helped make the thing goes out of his way to eliminate the mechanism that allows for the question to be asked and wrestled with in exchange for being able to say "phwoar! watta twist eh?"