Did you perhaps see a different version than I did? The version I saw did not have the glow, I was looking for it. Also The version I saw did not have a unicorn dream in it. I know Scott has tampered with the movie a few times over the years.
I got the impression the Replicants were designed to be more robust because they do the dirty work in the off-world colonies. That’s why Blade Runners need a special gun with exploding rounds in order to “retire” them. After all, Batty took a couple pipe hits to the face and only said “that hurt.”
I just watched Magic Mike on Netflix. Seriously, I was way more impressed than I expected to be. And sure Matthew McConaughey in assless chaps was appealing - what’s not to love about that? And lots and lots of mancandy. But I actually enjoyed the movie as a whole. Was it a Very Important Movie? No. But for what it was, I thought it did it really well, and I appreciated that the actors gave it their all and the director took it seriously even thought the story was the old hooker with a heart of gold thing we’ve all seen before.
I liked how the acting was done in such a way that the characters felt real and awkward, especially when the men were being presented as this fantasy in the dance routines. Even though they were yum yum yummy, off the stage they were more like your kid brother.
It almost to me felt like an old school 80’s kind of movie with music video interludes (the dance numbers) and a focus on a heartfelt romance.
I mostly didn’t enjoy Blade Runner 2049. It had its moments and its clever bits; Luv was a great character and she had possibly the best callback to the original movie. But there were a couple of sections of the movie that were just sort of a random mess and the movie almost lost me. And the music was nothing special, a disappointment after the original film’s score was so iconic.
Those are in both the director’s cut and the final cut – which are versions that got rid of the studio’s interference. No distracting voice overs, no tacked-on ending with footage borrowed from The Shining.
ETA: I haven’t had a Blade Runner marathon in a while. Maybe I’ll pull out the original cinema release and check.
There are apparently eight different versions of the film, with only seven having been seen outside of the studio:
I have seen some part of the theatrical version, but I have seen the inappropriately named Director’s Cut the most. I have the box set with five different versions in it, but have yet to watch them all.
Apparently the Final Cut version has additions made to it. Deckard’s eye glowing thing was not flmed in the original, so it has to be one of the additions.
That’s a big change. Even Lucas hasn’t gone hat far. That’s bigger than making Greedo shoot first. That’s like Obi Wan appearing to Luke on Degobah and confiding “Oh, and that whole Force thing — I made it up.”
I thought the Final Cut would remove the narration and the silly ending. I didn"t realize it pulled the rug out from under he whole story.
The unicorn aspect can be added back. I’m fine with that. Because, let me tell you, I don’t think Deckard is a Replicant, but I have a feeling Gaff might be…
I don’t think that’s an accurate statement. In the DVD commentaries they explain the methods used to make the eyes light up like that is quite old – it’s not a digital add-in. So unlike Han Shot First, the shot had always been available.
Furthermore, I know you said Deckard’s eyes don’t glow in the theatrical release, but a lot of people on-line say they do, and that’s how I remember it. Like here:
Even though I do think Deckard is a replicant, I don’t think it’s clear-cut within the film that is so. I don’t think there’s any one sign someone is or isn’t a replicant, simply because there are clear signs Tyrell has not been up-front about how the tech works.
I just watched the scene in his apartment after the death of Leon again to assure myself I’m not losing my mind. There’s no glow. I wanted to see it, but it’s not there.
I know it’s an easy effect to acheive while filming, so if it needed to be there it would have been. Perhaps Scott was made aware of this fan theory and thought, “hmm, that could make my movie deeper.” It’s not in the book.
I found the evidence in the Quora article a bit thin. I don’t think there should be one correct reading of the movie.
I think the story makes more sense if Deckard is a human and I’ll tell you why. Now hear me out. We’re told early on that Replicants are dangerous and can be detected by their lack of empathy. However, when we get to know the Replicants, they’re far more warm, sympathetic characters than the humans. They’re more hunan than human, if you will. All the humans are rather weak, flawed, unlikable characters. Deckard realizes this after Batty saves his life.
So if Blade Runner 2049 isn’t about a emerging race of human/replicant hybrids they missed a great opportunity. I guess I’ll never know.
And I feel silly arguing about Blade Runner. I swore I would never do that. It’s late and I’m off to dream of unicorns.
2500 classical works of art, at twelve images a second, so not for the seizure prone. Its co-creator, Mason Williams, has claimed that this film, which premiered on The Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour and helped popularize his tune “Classical Gas” is one of the first music videos, but there are hundreds of Soundies and Telescriptions that predate this 1968 work.
I just saw a movie I’ve been waiting months to see, “The Death of Stalin.”
Spoiler: Stalin dies.
There has been some criticism of the movie because it uses satire to present a serious situation and because it is not 100% factual. I don’t have a problem with this approach to its storytelling: It explains the situation after Stalin’s death just as “All You Need Is Cash” explains the Beatles. Sometimes absurdity is the best way to demonstrate reality.
Furthermore, although I know somethings about the characters and events depicted here, I’m certainly I’m not an expert, and this movie has encouraged me to read more about it in-depth.
The most surprising thing about the movie is how serious it is. I had expected it to be a farce, but no, was quite dramatic with some very tense moments. A lot of the dark humor it did have came from its frank depictions of political maneuverings.
The only major criticism I have with the movie is that there are next to no women in it. Perhaps that’s a realistic depiction of the Soviet Union of the time. Most of the women you see are victims of Beria’s… machinations. The only major female role in the film is Svetlana Stalina, and she pretty-much spends her time as a ping-pong ball being knocked back and forth between Krushchev and Beria. There’s also a pianist who serves no purpose other than to speak up for religion, for no particular reason necessary to the plot.
On the whole, it was a very good movie.
If you want to hear a serious discussion of the events surrounding Stalin’s death, listen here:
I watched Fast Times at Ridgemont High with my kid and OMG that movie is SUCH a perfect microcosm of the early 80s. It’s amazing how it captures the times so well. The mall. The hair. The puffy sleeves. The 2 Pat Benetar lookalikes.
It holds up way better than I imagined, and so many people still at the acting game got their start in it. Spicoli still steals the show; it’s a hoot to watch Sean Penn who takes himself so seriously being so straight up stupid.
Also, how did I not know Amy Heckerling also did Clueless? Now time to binge watch her entire ouevre.
