unicorn?

i believe the one with the voice-over was the original US theatrical version.

Yeah, there is a brief dream scene with a Unicorn. I always assumed it related to Gaff and his origami so far but wasn't totally sure of the significance. I should look it up, I'm sure there are papers on it. I can't recall if it was in the book. I liked Gaff and his origami.

can't say i remember that scene.... i think i'll have to rewatch it!

I like the theatrical release with the voice over. I also like the other versions. I have not seen the Final Cut.

The unicorn scene at the end. Deckard had implanted memories since he is a replicant. There are a lot of theories on the unicorn, I need to watch the movie again. Haven't watched it in a while.

Is he a replicant though? That part was always ambiguous. I actually never noticed it coming up in either book or film until I bumped into people musing on whether or not he was or wasn't.

He was totally a replicant. The biggest clue was when he has all the pictures of his ancestors on the piano. They all had pictures of their families. It helped them "remember" the implanted memories. I'm pretty sure that Ridley Scott mentioned that also, that Deckard was a replicant.

Replicant: Read this.

yeah, i gotta rewatch!

Yeah me too! All this talk has newly intrigued me about the movie and its themes.

Most of those reasons I would say don't necessarily prove he's a replicant (there are other possible reasons) but a few stick out. I guess like the original screen writer I don't consider answering that question to be all that important. I think if what he was mattered more, there would be a little more to it than a unicorn.

That "kinship" line always got me, because it was never clear to me what he actually said. What is 'kinship' or 'kingship?" Both to me have applicable but different possible meanings. I've been wanting to know what the script actually said.

"Ridley Scott said so" is probably the only solid argument, in my opinion. The rest of it is as ambiguous as the conclusion if you take that detail out.

also, when i read Androids, i thought Deckard was human. i thought that way when i saw the movie too, so i'm willing to bet that i've only seen the US theatrical version. the question the movie ends with is that is Sean Young's character (Rachel) a replicant?

Well in the beginning of the movie when Rachael takes the Voight-Kampff test given by Deckard at the Tyrell Corporation, Deckard says to Tyrell "does she know?" Then they discuss how many questions it took to determine that she was a Replicant.
I am dying to see the sequel because perhaps those questions will be definitely answered, especially the one about Deckard. But Rachael was definitely one because Tyrell said so in the movie.

I remember the test was to determine if the replicants had empathy, which they did not possess, they could implant memories, but they could not make them "human".

yeah, i want to see the new movie too.

and yes, i need a rewatch - i thought Deckard saying "does she know?" was at the end of the movie.... o_O

Damn I'm pretty sure it was the beginning, because I have seen the theatrical release and the Director's Cut about 20 times total. But not for a long time, so ... gotta rewatch it.

This is the one I have, plus the blu-ray of the Final Cut.

movie night!!! :D

Yeah! too bad we cant all meet at my house, popcorn, beverages and a night of Blade Runner!!!

The VK test isn't to see if Replicants have emphathy. It's already known/assumed that they don't (this is much more obvious in the book with the scene with the spider) and the VK test finds them by testing that empathy. Rachel is a replicant but does not know initially, so her reactions to the questions appear to be genuine, and she almost passes but Deckard trips her up with a surprise question and she doesn't react quite fast enough to prove legitimate empathy.

It's worth reading the book because they approach to empathy is so different. Roy Batty's character is dramatically different, as is Deckard. Deckard is married, and there is a whole religious movement that works from empathy and emotion.

EDIT: there is also an electric sheep. ;)

Good points!
Mechanical animals are a status symbol in a world where all the animals are dead!
I remember that from both the movie and the book.

Not entirely. They aren't all dead, so the real status symbols are the living ones. Again, this comes up more in the book. It's seen in the movie when Deckard asks if the owl in Tyrell corp is real, and when he's talking to the stripper and asking if her snake is real to which she replies along the lines of "do you think I'd be working here if I could afford a real one?"

This is why I find it hard to compare the book and the film. They focus on such different points, that I can't legit say if the movie is better than the book or vice versa, as people often do. There is just too much variance.

from my hazy recollections, there was only a nod to the animals in the movie. but as we've seen, i could be wrong.

also - road trip!!! *plugs in Moonshadow's city into google maps* i can be there in about 7 hours? so says google maps, anyway! XD

7 hours? That's less than a day! Used to take me longer than that to get to my specialist.

Edited my above post a bit. So much chatter here I think I've missed stuff.

Now I'm thinking of picking up a copy of "Electric Sheep" again. I gave my copy to my local library before I moved away since they didn't have one.

and yes, i do agree that a movie made from a book focuses on different things sometimes. the trick of a scriptwriter and/or movie producer is what part of the original book do they want to focus on. i think it's why the longer the story or the more involved the story is, sometimes the more basic the movie is.

after dealing with the fandom of one show (that i still love and watch) the fandom hated when the two characters were split up and they each had their own plot. it was as if that segment of the fandom couldn't handle two plots. gods forbid if they read the Game of Thrones series, or watched a show with a huge ensemble.

but, of course, that's all my opinion on the books to movies and why the movies are different. XD

I mean moreso than the usual book vs. movie debate. I can still see the parallels between LOTR books and films, and I find it's much easier to compare those two, or I Am Legend book vs. film, but not at all with Electric Sheep and Blade Runner.

yeah, there are some movies that do justice to their source material. =)

One movie that did justice to the book is Cloud Atlas. I read the book and a week later saw the movie and they can easily stand alone. A beautiful adaptation of a book that consider a classic. One of the finest genre bending books I've ever read!

I really recommend the movie. Like every other David Mitchell book it has to be read fast in order to get in the flow of the story. So watch the movie it was a loyal adaptation of the book.

well that's cool, Moonshadow

Have you seen that movie or read the book?

i have not.

I think you would definitely appreciate either one.

i've heard of it. i'll try to keep either one in mind. =)

My friend read Cloud Atlas and I've heard of it but haven't looked into it much, given how many other books are on my reading docket already.

And bonus! I stopped by Walmart today because I was irritated by the crappy traffic on the way to my mom's place in the off chance they might have Blade Runner in the blu ray bin.

They did! Not sure what the "final cut" will really be, but it was cheap, I'm mostly hoping that with the 'new special effects' they talk about the were able to do something with the film so that it shows up better. I like the dark atmosphere, but it's darn hard to see, especially on a TV that might not be that great.

Hopefully I'll finish An Imaginary Life the few days I'm at my mom's house. Then I can leave it here and reduce my book load at my house by one.;)

Not sure if I'll keep it. It's a curious thing so far. Reminds me of Oscar Wilde's De Profundis with its sort of life and philosophical observations.

i understand what movies and shows try to do with the dark, noir-like lighting... but sometimes you just can't see what's actually happening!

I dislike that noir stuff, and the mumbling. Fortheloveofgod! sometimes I have to turn on the subtitles on American shows/movies! The sound is usually so bad.

Cloud Atlas is really worth going to the front of the line. I also found a cheap blu-ray of Blade Runner, the Final Cut! at Walmart!

No mumbling, but lots of dark because there is no Sun hitting the Earth anymore. All the lighting is artificial, unless you're Tyrell corp and have the money to build a massive skyscraper that goes above the layer of pollution and nastiness. Blade Runner, that is.

Hey! Same thing I got!

EDIT: no reading at all today. Bad me. Gaming. Although, my game has books. Does that count at all? What about my book of those books?

I've been reading so much lately that I have a headache all the time.
I'm reading two non-fiction and a fiction called, Smilla's Sense of Snow, it is an old book by Peter Hoag, it is translated from Danish which gives it an interesting voice.

Why is that author familiar?

Translations can be interesting. I attempted to read Phantom of the Opera once (translated from French) and the writing was so irritating to me that I abandoned the book. I might try it again, but a different translation.

I'm always curious about what might get missed when a book is translated. Languages don't always fit together well.

Spent two hours in a book store today...didn't spend that much though, considering. Decided I wanted to get more knowledgeable in science stuff so I picked up Hyperspace, a sort of Layman's guide to fancy space science, by Michio Kaku. Was looking at the ones by Neil deGrassee Tyson and Bill Nye as well, but I settled on Kaku's. This will be my non-fiction reading!

I also found a craft book that uses library resources and materials for projects. Who knew?

i finished The Operator the other day - it's book 2 in a series where the character can 'draft' - go back in time and rewrite the last 30-90 seconds if need be. it was pretty cool. slow to get into, but it got better as it went along.

my current book in my sig, The Revenge of Analog: Real Things and Why they Matter, ties in nicely with my NaNo novel i did last year. hee!

Finished An Imaginary Life. Not the ending I was expecting, but then I'm not sure I expected anything. Now I'm annoyed that the book I want to start next is not here! I'm trying to avoid reading more than two at once and I'm still poking my way through Memories of Ice in my own good time.

I have a bad habit of reading more than one book at a time. Right now I am reading one fiction and three non-fiction!

Quiet: that was a good choice. I like Dr. Kaku, he is amazing, he is the co-creator (?) not the right word I know, of string theory. I find him very accessible. I am not a fan of Tyson, I find him quite a pompous ass, and Bill Nye is, well...not a scientist! hahaha

Is he not? I've never really thought about it, but from looking at his stuff, I found it to be more politically oriented than either Tyson or Kaku. I like what I've seen of Tyson, but as it was, the book of his that I wanted wasn't in stores yet, and Kaku's book was closer to what I was looking for. They seem to be commentaries and cross comment.

On the topic of general science, my brother (who reads a fair bit of this stuff) strongly recommends "A Brief History of Nearly Everything" by Bill Bryson. I'll get that at some point, or maybe on audiobook, since it's not something I really want to read from cover to cover.