" BLADE RUNNER " thread.

I am now reading Philip K. Dick's novel, " Do Androids Dream Of Electric Sheep? " in a mass-market paperback edition that included that title but more prominently plays up its movie-given title, " Blade Runner ". I have never read it before, nor have I seen the 80s movie or any of its offshoots, cinematic or otherwise ~ I guess I am about to miss the opportunity to see " Blade Runner 2049 " theatrically, unless it gets a limited midnight movie/" cult film " run!!!:-)

  Let's discuss all versions/continuations of DADOES?/BR, spoilers okay.

You need to be a member of Captain Comics to add comments!

Join Captain Comics

Votes: 0
Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • In what I've read thus yet ~ BR-the-movie has a reputation as " a real dose of/inspiration for 80s post-punk style " ~ but the novel's definitely a product of the Sixties !

      I mean, of course, it was copyrighted 1968 (49 years ago!!!:-0) and all that ~ and it's rather concise. PKD came out of the older SF writer tradition of writing punchy short stories and novelettes, methinks  ~ not endless sagas and 1000-page epics.

  • I'm waiting for Blade Runner 2049 to come to HBO. 

    As to the original movie, I've read speculation ever since about Decker being a replicant, but I've always wondered why. I mean, I guess it's a neat idea and all, but what in the movie suggests it? He seems perfectly human to me. He's got a past that others remember and everything.

    Anyone know why so many want to believe Decker is a replicant? Did I miss something?

  • I never understood why He was thought to be a replicant, either.

  • Another book that I have but haven't read yet.

  • I didn't find out until a few years ago, that it was a hot topic. To me, I never cared, or even thought about it until I saw the debate. 

    Captain Comics said:

    I'm waiting for Blade Runner 2049 to come to HBO. 

    As to the original movie, I've read speculation ever since about Decker being a replicant, but I've always wondered why. I mean, I guess it's a neat idea and all, but what in the movie suggests it? He seems perfectly human to me. He's got a past that others remember and everything.

    Anyone know why so many want to believe Decker is a replicant? Did I miss something?



  • Captain Comics said:


    Anyone know why so many want to believe Decker is a replicant? Did I miss something?


    I'm not sure where the whole thing got started but at some point, when Ridley Scott was questioned about it, he said that was his original intention. I'm not sure I really buy it though. I think maybe he just thinks it makes him sound clever to say that.
  • I looked into this recently, because I've been of the same opinion. People making a movie sometimes consider different possible courses for the story, and they sometimes seek to be ambiguous. From what I can tell the idea of Dekard's being a replicant was considered, but it doesn't follow it made it into the movie.

    The original ending - spoiler warning - tends to exclude it. Haff says "It's a pity she won't live, but then again, who does?" That refers only to Rachael. Dekard's voiceover explains Haff let her go figuring she'd only live four years, but he didn't know she has no termination date. If he's a replicant it would have to be he still doesn't know he's a replicant too, and there's no indication that's what we're supposed to think at that point.

  • Luke Blanchard said:

    Dekard's voiceover explains Haff let her go figuring she'd only live four years, but he didn't know she has no termination date.

    Director Ridley Scott's version is the Director's Cut which was released years later. It restored the version that was originally released in Europe. The voiceover you quote was tacked on by the studio for U.S. release, along with the the drive on the pretty country roads. It doesn't count.

This reply was deleted.