Bladerunner sux

[NikPreviousAcct]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: ffmcobalt
A movie made with today's creativity and technological advances along the storyline of Bladerunner would KICK ASS.

nik

Too bad the movie I watched sucked.

Yeah, I don't care for it either. But I like the idea.

nik

 

[Tallgeese]

Originally posted by: Jzero
Deckard (Harrison Ford): Was he really a human being?

Was ANYONE, for that matter?

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
Those guys who were shot dead were replicants. Hooray for them. Die replicants die.

If you were paying attention, maybe you'd have a sensible argument, but it seems you were not. Go watch it again with a more critical eye. Forget about explosions and violence and flashy lights for a moment. I know it's hard to imagine in this day and age, but there was once a time, not long ago, when movies actually had plot, depth, a philosophical message about human nature....this is from that forgotten age.

Perhaps this will lead you more in a better direction:
Deckard (Harrison Ford): Was he really a human being?

When you ask that question, you have to ask yourself, "Does the person I am asking this question to really care?"

The answer to that is no. I do not care because the movie was really boring and I didn't even want to keep track of the plot in case it fries my brain or something.
BTW Harrison Ford is a real human being. Why? Because if he was a replicant he would have died a long time ago, killed by the police. Also, he's such a weakling that he cannot be a replicant. Strenght is presumably the easiest thing to reproduce (it's only physical and very likely to have been researched extensively before any replicants were even created) . Next is intelligence. It's harder to make an intelligent human being or a replica. If society can barely do it with real humans over a period of 18 years (mandatory U.S. education time), then it would be much harder to make a replicant intelligent in a much shorter time span. He is very intelligent yet he is weak, leading to a contradiction with the above statements so therefore he is human.

 

[0roo0roo]

think of when it came out? yes long ago.


i think it was one of the first future noir movies.

after that it got ripped off over and over.

u watched it after seeing all the rip offs

 

[A5]

Anyway, to restate what I said earlier, I didn't like the movie. It wasn't the lack of action (I liked 2001), and I can't really put a finger on exactly why I don't like it, but I just don't have any desire to see it again.

So, which characters were replicants?

Maybe all, maybe none. You could really look at it either way.

Maybe the whole 'replicant' thing was just made up so they could get rid of people they didn't like?

Or maybe everyone was one and they only singled out a few from the status quo to keep the general masses thinking that they were 'real', and therefore happy?

It's one of those questions that can't really be answered by anyone but the author, and maybe he purposely kept it secret, much like Tom Bombadil in Lord of the Rings.

"And even in a mythical Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally)."

The Letters of J.R.R. Tolkien, No 144, dated 1954

 

[friedpie]

Blade Runner came out in 1982, I think. I was a wee laddie serving time in the Air Force. My roommate and his hillbilly girlfriend went to see it one night. They walked out after the first hour. They came home and told me it was the worst movie they had ever seen. I didn't go see it because of what they said.

I end up in Korea a year later. Back then they had this little deal setup at the Morale Welfare and Recreation center (I think that's what it was called) where you could copy movies for your own use. They had stations with two VCRs, one for playback, one for taping. It was sweeeeeeeet! One of the tapes I made was of Blade Runner.

When I watched it, I was floored. It was a BRILLIANT movie. No, it didn't have CGI and all the fancy shmancy stuff we have today, but it was moody and dark and the story was the hook. There were some truly classic moments in there. Remember when Roy and Leon went to the eye maker, and while Roy was talking to the eye maker, Leon put an eye on the eye maker's shoulder? It was f-ed up.

There were some thought provoking moments in there. The killing of Tyrell. Would you kill God if he would not or could not give you immortality?

My favorite scene was when Roy pulled Deckert up instead of letting him drop to his death. He then sat down and talking about all the things he had seen, like C Beams off the shoulder of Orion. He released the dove into the rain and said "Time to die." The scene was beautiful. It's rather simple, why are we here. Why do we have to die. Come on, it was brilliant.

The soundtrack is one of the best ever, too. Just my opinion.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: A5

Originally posted by: TallGeese
Clarified my question...for the numbskulls

About to start a parallel thread...anybody with half a clue is more than welcome

The always fun "you're dumb because you don't agree with me" attack. Real original.

It wasn't an agree or disagree situation that TallGeese was responding to. He kept asking a question and TNTrulez has shown that he didn't pay attention well enough to understand the point of the movie. In this situation, yes, TNT is being a numbskull. Not because he didn't like the movie, but because he's bashing something without understanding it.

It's like me saying that random pieces of famous art are stupid when I haven't taken the time to find out the true meaning behind them. BTW, abstract art blows, anyway.

CK

There's a difference between choosing not to answer a question and not understanding the subject matter. If I deem the question irrelevant or if I do not care to answer, that does not mean I did not understand it.

For example, if I ask you ,"Do you masterbate and how do you choose do it?", most likely you would not answer that question; not because you don't know about the subject (it's your own action after all), but because you choose not to answer.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
Those guys who were shot dead were replicants. Hooray for them. Die replicants die.

If you were paying attention, maybe you'd have a sensible argument, but it seems you were not. Go watch it again with a more critical eye. Forget about explosions and violence and flashy lights for a moment. I know it's hard to imagine in this day and age, but there was once a time, not long ago, when movies actually had plot, depth, a philosophical message about human nature....this is from that forgotten age.

Perhaps this will lead you more in a better direction:
Deckard (Harrison Ford): Was he really a human being?

When you ask that question, you have to ask yourself, "Does the person I am asking this question to really care?"

You cared enough to post here and bitch about it, AND you cared enough to hazard at least a guess.

The answer to that is no. I do not care because the movie was really boring and I didn't even want to keep track of the plot in case it fries my brain or something.

I guess you should stick to "Armageddon" where you don't have to think?

BTW Harrison Ford is a real human being. Why? Because if he was a replicant he would have died a long time ago, killed by the police. Also, he's such a weakling that he cannot be a replicant. Strenght is presumably the easiest thing to reproduce (it's only physical and very likely to have been researched extensively before any replicants were even created) . Next is intelligence. It's harder to make an intelligent human being or a replica. If society can barely do it with real humans over a period of 18 years (mandatory U.S. education time), then it would be much harder to make a replicant intelligent in a much shorter time span. He is very intelligent yet he is weak, leading to a contradiction with the above statements so therefore he is human.

You may have noticed that there were different grades of reps in terms of physical strength. There's no reason to assume that he was in the highest class. If Deckard was the ultimate replicant, and since he WAS a BladeRunner, then why would he have been killed off? How did he survive the beating he took in the movie if he was just a normal person?

The beauty of Bladerunner isn't that it's particularly exciting, it's how you spend the whole time rooting for Deckard as a human fighting the evil replicants, and then suddenly at the end, you are no longer so certain that Deckard is a human.

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: friedpie
Blade Runner came out in 1982, I think. I was a wee laddie serving time in the Air Force. My roommate and his hillbilly girlfriend went to see it one night. They walked out after the first hour. They came home and told me it was the worst movie they had ever seen. I didn't go see it because of what they said.

I end up in Korea a year later. Back then they had this little deal setup at the Morale Welfare and Recreation center (I think that's what it was called) where you could copy movies for your own use. They had stations with two VCRs, one for playback, one for taping. It was sweeeeeeeet! One of the tapes I made was of Blade Runner.

When I watched it, I was floored. It was a BRILLIANT movie. No, it didn't have CGI and all the fancy shmancy stuff we have today, but it was moody and dark and the story was the hook. There were some truly classic moments in there. Remember when Roy and Leon went to the eye maker, and while Roy was talking to the eye maker, Leon put an eye on the eye maker's shoulder? It was f-ed up.

There were some thought provoking moments in there. The killing of Tyrell. Would you kill God if he would not or could not give you immortality?


My favorite scene was when Roy pulled Deckert up instead of letting him drop to his death. He then sat down and talking about all the things he had seen, like C Beams off the shoulder of Orion. He released the dove into the rain and said "Time to die." The scene was beautiful. It's rather simple, why are we here. Why do we have to die. Come on, it was brilliant.

The soundtrack is one of the best ever, too. Just my opinion.

So 10% of the time it is interesting, the other 90% of the time it sucks. It doesn't cut it. Maybe I'm insensitized to the movie because I have seen so many rip-offs that are new and contain fancy graphics, but that scene with the eye wasn't even cool or disturbing. In that scene I was wonder how the replicants found the man in the first place.

 

[Jzero]

There's a difference between choosing not to answer a question and not understanding the subject matter. If I deem the question irrelevant or if I do not care to answer, that does not mean I did not understand it.

If you deem that particular question posed to you by Tallgeese and me "irrelevant," than you clearly do not understand the subject matter--that question is the crux of what Bladerunner is about.

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: A5

Originally posted by: TallGeese
Clarified my question...for the numbskulls

About to start a parallel thread...anybody with half a clue is more than welcome

The always fun "you're dumb because you don't agree with me" attack. Real original.

It wasn't an agree or disagree situation that TallGeese was responding to. He kept asking a question and TNTrulez has shown that he didn't pay attention well enough to understand the point of the movie. In this situation, yes, TNT is being a numbskull. Not because he didn't like the movie, but because he's bashing something without understanding it.

It's like me saying that random pieces of famous art are stupid when I haven't taken the time to find out the true meaning behind them. BTW, abstract art blows, anyway.

CK

There's a difference between choosing not to answer a question and not understanding the subject matter. If I deem the question irrelevant or if I do not care to answer, that does not mean I did not understand it.

For example, if I ask you ,"Do you masterbate and how do you choose do it?", most likely you would not answer that question; not because you don't know about the subject (it's your own action after all), but because you choose not to answer.

Well, you attempted to answer the question twice, both with answers indicative of a person that didn't know what they were talking about. Once you said that replicants were just robots. The second time you said they were those who were shot dead. Neither answer demonstrated the idea that you knew the point of the question.

The point of the question was to get you to wonder whether or not Harrison Ford's character in particular was a replicant because it was not spelled out for you. If you didn't catch the most intriguing part of a movie, and obviously you haven't, you shouldn't expect to like it. I would highly suggest watching it again with an open mind.

CK

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
Those guys who were shot dead were replicants. Hooray for them. Die replicants die.

If you were paying attention, maybe you'd have a sensible argument, but it seems you were not. Go watch it again with a more critical eye. Forget about explosions and violence and flashy lights for a moment. I know it's hard to imagine in this day and age, but there was once a time, not long ago, when movies actually had plot, depth, a philosophical message about human nature....this is from that forgotten age.

Perhaps this will lead you more in a better direction:
Deckard (Harrison Ford): Was he really a human being?

When you ask that question, you have to ask yourself, "Does the person I am asking this question to really care?"

You cared enough to post here and bitch about it, AND you cared enough to hazard at least a guess.

The answer to that is no. I do not care because the movie was really boring and I didn't even want to keep track of the plot in case it fries my brain or something.

I guess you should stick to "Armageddon" where you don't have to think?

BTW Harrison Ford is a real human being. Why? Because if he was a replicant he would have died a long time ago, killed by the police. Also, he's such a weakling that he cannot be a replicant. Strenght is presumably the easiest thing to reproduce (it's only physical and very likely to have been researched extensively before any replicants were even created) . Next is intelligence. It's harder to make an intelligent human being or a replica. If society can barely do it with real humans over a period of 18 years (mandatory U.S. education time), then it would be much harder to make a replicant intelligent in a much shorter time span. He is very intelligent yet he is weak, leading to a contradiction with the above statements so therefore he is human.

You may have noticed that there were different grades of reps in terms of physical strength. There's no reason to assume that he was in the highest class. If Deckard was the ultimate replicant, and since he WAS a BladeRunner, then why would he have been killed off? How did he survive the beating he took in the movie if he was just a normal person?

The beauty of Bladerunner isn't that it's particularly exciting, it's how you spend the whole time rooting for Deckard as a human fighting the evil replicants, and then suddenly at the end, you are no longer so certain that Deckard is a human.

I know he is a human. Also, why was he made Bladerunner if he is a weakling replicant? There's no reason to do it.
Also, you would be suprised at how much beating a normal human being could take. He didn't even take that much of a beating in the movie. He got pounded around a bit, fingers broke, yea so what? He didn't even get any ribs broken.

 

[Desslok]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: PSYWVic WTF are you? 14? :disgust:

WTF are you? Gay? :disgust: As you can see, neither your sexual preference nor my age have to do with anything. Why don't you keep your mouth shut next time unless you have a constructive comment, jerk.

WOW what a comeback!

Trying to agrue taste is like being in the special olymipcs, even if you win you are still retared.

 

[0roo0roo]

i'm wondering, did u watch a low quality divx of it too?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: PSYWVic
WTF are you? 14? :disgust:

WTF are you? Gay? :disgust:

As you can see, neither your sexual preference nor my age have to do with anything. Why don't you keep your mouth shut next time unless you have a constructive comment, jerk.

LOL!
You want constructive comments?
The movie you panned is a classic, made probably well before you were born which is probably why you are seeing it for the first time now. The reasons you disliked it were immature ("not enough action"). Your comeback PM here only proved to me your immaturity.
More constructive comments?
The movie's not supposed to be full of action. You're supposed to think. Try it sometime. The director's cut is controversial and not everyone likes it as much as the original cut. Maybe you should've watched the original version first, although I doubt you'd be able to appreciate it.
Anyway, IMNSHO your thread was pure trollbait, and I treated it as such. Can I assume you don't like The Godfather either?

 

[0roo0roo]

quick seach on google

14. IS DECKARD A REPLICANT?

This question causes the most debate among BR fans. The different versions
of BR support this notion to differing degrees. One might argue that in the
1982 theatrical release, Deckard is not a replicant but in BRDC, he is.

There is no definitive answer: Ridley Scott himself has stated that, although
he deliberately made the ending ambiguous, he also intentionally introduced
enough evidence to support the notion, and (as far as he is concerned),
Deckard is a replicant. [See section 9.]


The "FOR" case
--------------

- Ridley Scott and Harrison Ford have stated that Deckard was meant to be a
replicant. In Details magazine (US) October 1992 Ford says:

"Blade Runner was not one of my favorite films. I tangled
with Ridley. The biggest problem was that at the end, he wanted the
audience to find out that Deckard was a replicant. I fought that
because I felt the audience needed somebody to cheer for."

- The shooting script had a voice-over where Deckard says, "I knew it on the
roof that night. We were brothers, Roy Batty and I!"

- Gaff knew that Deckard dreamt of a unicorn, therefore Gaff knew what dreams
that Deckard had been implanted with. (BRDC only)

- Replicants have a penchant for photographs, because it gives them a tie to
their non-existent past. Deckard's flat is packed with photos, and none of
them are recent or in color. Despite her memories, Rachael needed a photo
as an emotional cushion. Likewise, Deckard would need photos, despite his
memory implants. Rachael plays the piano, and Deckard has a piano in his
flat.

- Gaff tells him "You've done a man's job, sir!". Early drafts of the script
have him then add: "But are you sure you are man? It's hard to be sure
who's who around here."

- Only a replicant could survive the beatings that Deckard takes, and then
struggle up the side of a building with two dislocated fingers.

- Bryant's threat "If you're not a cop, you're little people" might be
an allusion to Deckard being created solely for police work.

- Deckard's eyes glow (yellow-orange) when he tells Rachael that he wouldn't
go after her, "but someone would". Deckard is standing behind Rachael,
and he's out of focus.

- Roy knew Deckard's name, yet he was never told it. Some speculate that
Deckard might have been part of Roy's off-world rebellion, but was captured
by the police and used to hunt down the others. In tht case, Bryant is
including Deckard among the five escaped replicants.

- The police would not risk a human to hunt four powerful replicants,
particularly since replicants were designed for such dangerous work. Of
course Deckard would have to think he was human or he might not be willing
to hunt down other replicants.

- Gaff seems to follow Deckard everywhere -- he is at the scene of all the
Replicant retirings almost immediately. Gaff is always with Deckard when
the chief is around. This suggests that Gaff is the real BR, and that
Deckard is only a tool Gaff uses for the dirty work.


The "AGAINST" case
------------------

- A major point of the film was to show Deckard (The Common Man) the
value of life. "What's it like to live in fear?" If all the main
characters are replicants, the contrast between humans and replicants is
lost.

- Rachael had an implanted unicorn dream and Deckard's reverie in BRDC was a
result of having seen her implants. Gaff may have seen Rachael's implants
at the same time Deckard did, perhaps while they were at Tyrell's.

- Could you trust a replicant to kill other replicants? Why did the police
trust Deckard?

- Having Deckard as a replicant implies a conspiracy between the police and
Tyrell.

- Replicants were outlawed on Earth and it seems unlikely that a replicant
would have an ex-wife.

- If Deckard was a replicant designed to be a Blade Runner, why would they
give him bad memories of the police force? Wouldn't it be more effective
if he were loyal and happy about his work?

- Deckard was not a replicant in DADoES, although he has another Blade Runner
test him at one point just to be sure.

 

[Jzero]

I know he is a human.

That's funny, because Ridley Scott himself has declared that he intended Deckard to be a replicant...

Also, why was he made Bladerunner if he is a weakling replicant? There's no reason to do it.

If he was to represent the most perfect rep, "perfect" meaning "perfectly emulates a human being," then it would be too obvious if he had super human strength.

Also, you would be suprised at how much beating a normal human being could take. He didn't even take that much of a beating in the movie. He got pounded around a bit, fingers broke, yea so what? He didn't even get any ribs broken.

You try it...

 

[CKDragon]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
Those guys who were shot dead were replicants. Hooray for them. Die replicants die.

If you were paying attention, maybe you'd have a sensible argument, but it seems you were not. Go watch it again with a more critical eye. Forget about explosions and violence and flashy lights for a moment. I know it's hard to imagine in this day and age, but there was once a time, not long ago, when movies actually had plot, depth, a philosophical message about human nature....this is from that forgotten age.

Perhaps this will lead you more in a better direction:
Deckard (Harrison Ford): Was he really a human being?

When you ask that question, you have to ask yourself, "Does the person I am asking this question to really care?"

You cared enough to post here and bitch about it, AND you cared enough to hazard at least a guess.

The answer to that is no. I do not care because the movie was really boring and I didn't even want to keep track of the plot in case it fries my brain or something.

I guess you should stick to "Armageddon" where you don't have to think?

BTW Harrison Ford is a real human being. Why? Because if he was a replicant he would have died a long time ago, killed by the police. Also, he's such a weakling that he cannot be a replicant. Strenght is presumably the easiest thing to reproduce (it's only physical and very likely to have been researched extensively before any replicants were even created) . Next is intelligence. It's harder to make an intelligent human being or a replica. If society can barely do it with real humans over a period of 18 years (mandatory U.S. education time), then it would be much harder to make a replicant intelligent in a much shorter time span. He is very intelligent yet he is weak, leading to a contradiction with the above statements so therefore he is human.

You may have noticed that there were different grades of reps in terms of physical strength. There's no reason to assume that he was in the highest class. If Deckard was the ultimate replicant, and since he WAS a BladeRunner, then why would he have been killed off? How did he survive the beating he took in the movie if he was just a normal person?

The beauty of Bladerunner isn't that it's particularly exciting, it's how you spend the whole time rooting for Deckard as a human fighting the evil replicants, and then suddenly at the end, you are no longer so certain that Deckard is a human.

I know he is a human. Also, why was he made Bladerunner if he is a weakling replicant? There's no reason to do it.
Also, you would be suprised at how much beating a normal human being could take. He didn't even take that much of a beating in the movie. He got pounded around a bit, fingers broke, yea so what? He didn't even get any ribs broken.

And within that post lies the problem. You are CERTAIN that Deckard is a certain form. You weren't meant to be certain that Deckard is a certain form. The director's intention was to leave you in a state of uncertainty. If you truly believe in your closed-minded viewpoint then you did, in fact, miss the point of the movie. How can you not see this?

CK

 

[0roo0roo]

and on strength since tnt was upset over that

The replicants he was up against were all physically superior (A-level); Rachael, to name another replicant was also Nexus 6, yet she did not exhibit any of the superhuman abilities/traits the other reps have.

So evidently you have all kinds of replicants, from A-level (the strongest) to possibly B- and C- classes. (As evidenced in the information given at the briefing by Capt. Bryant, there are also mental classes ranging from A (your regular genius) over B (average?) to C (not too bright).

This inevitably brings up the question: what is the purpose of making a rep with average human abilities. Once again, consider Rachael's case. She was a replicant who wasn't supposed to know about it. In order to pull this off, she would have to have "average" human abilities, not the superhuman qualities that Batty or Leon, for example, had (because otherwise she would find out right away that she was a replicant). And implanted memories, but that's another discussion in itself...

Likewise, if Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, and he wasn't supposed to know about it, the *only way* to pull it off (without letting him find out or making him suspicious) would be to give him average human skills and abilities, and NOT make him a terminator of sorts. Unfortunately this would indeed mean he has to deal with physically stronger opponents.




faq away.. faq awy

 

[TNTrulez]

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: TNTrulez

Originally posted by: CKDragon

Originally posted by: A5

Originally posted by: TallGeese
Clarified my question...for the numbskulls

About to start a parallel thread...anybody with half a clue is more than welcome

The always fun "you're dumb because you don't agree with me" attack. Real original.

It wasn't an agree or disagree situation that TallGeese was responding to. He kept asking a question and TNTrulez has shown that he didn't pay attention well enough to understand the point of the movie. In this situation, yes, TNT is being a numbskull. Not because he didn't like the movie, but because he's bashing something without understanding it.

It's like me saying that random pieces of famous art are stupid when I haven't taken the time to find out the true meaning behind them. BTW, abstract art blows, anyway.

CK

There's a difference between choosing not to answer a question and not understanding the subject matter. If I deem the question irrelevant or if I do not care to answer, that does not mean I did not understand it.

For example, if I ask you ,"Do you masterbate and how do you choose do it?", most likely you would not answer that question; not because you don't know about the subject (it's your own action after all), but because you choose not to answer.

Well, you attempted to answer the question twice, both with answers indicative of a person that didn't know what they were talking about. Once you said that replicants were just robots. The second time you said they were those who were shot dead. Neither answer demonstrated the idea that you knew the point of the question.

The point of the question was to get you to wonder whether or not Harrison Ford's character in particular was a replicant because it was not spelled out for you. If you didn't catch the most intriguing part of a movie, and obviously you haven't, you shouldn't expect to like it. I would highly suggest watching it again with an open mind.

CK

Why would I care if Ford is a replicant or not? Yes, I did notice some hints in the movie that leaves you wondering if he is a replicant.
However, the same problem in this movie is the same in AI. Simply, I do not care about the main character. Oooh, robot boy, he misses his mommy. Blah blah blah. He's just a robot! Kill him and make some new ones. Mushy stuff should be mild at best in movies. Anime has the same problem where there is too many moral questions and inner dialogue that detracts from the fun of watching it. The really great anime I have seen doesn't have that much morals or inner dialogue. DBZ is really popular. Does the character in DBZ ever wondered about the organisms on the planets they destroy? No. Vegeta killed an entire planet full of beings. Does he obsess about killing those beings? No. The whole point of a movie is that it should be fun and relaxing, not boring and make you more depressed after you seen it.
Good movies:
MIB
MIBII
Matrix
LOTR

What does all those movies have in common? They don't revolve around some question or morality or humanity. The Matrix is closest to the questions of self-aware machines and their connotations, but the plot basically is man awakens, man fight robots, man beat robots. No where does Neo feel bad for killing those self-aware robots or for killing hundreds of millions people when he shuts down the matrix (surely the free humans cannot save everyone freed from the matrix and it is certain that a good percentage of them cannot survive without the matrix, including the one who have passed the age limit discussed in the movie). If the Matrix mentions that in the movie, would you still feel so good after getting out of that movie? I think not.

 

[Ameesh]

its a little slow

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Blade Runner is a modern classic, and I thought it was a beautiful, thought-provoking, brilliant film. To each his own I guess, but I regard this entire thread as misbegotten and silly.

 

[TNTrulez]

Ahh no more. I have my opinion and you guys have yours. Doesn't matter to me. Just wanted to share what I thought of that movie right after I watched it.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: TNTrulez
I know he is a human. Also, why was he made Bladerunner if he is a weakling replicant? There's no reason to do it.
Also, you would be suprised at how much beating a normal human being could take. He didn't even take that much of a beating in the movie. He got pounded around a bit, fingers broke, yea so what? He didn't even get any ribs broken.

You only say that because you're used to watching movies where 8 year old boys fall 50 feet out of a tree, hitting every branch on the way down, and yet when they hit the ground they can still get up in time to miss a falling Ford Explorer. Jurassic Park reference, watch it again to realize how much unbelievable damage people take in the movies and still keep going. When I see movies like that, it just ruins the experience for me. How am I supposed to believe something so unbelievable?
I wonder how you would feel if you just "got pounded around a bit, fingers broke, yea so what?" Hey, you "didn't even get any ribs broken," so who cares, right?

 

[AaronP]

In The Fugitve "Director's Cut" Richard Kimball killed his wife, and then framed the one armed man.