|
Basebf555 posted:If he didn't do anything bad then what would he need redemption for? Its precisely because he's committed violence and murder that Batty's "redemption" works. The audience slowly begins to identify with him as we realize that his actions are driven not by the things that make him a replicant, but by very human qualities that are in all of us. If he were just a nice guy who was poo poo on the whole movie until he dies you'd lose that whole dynamic. I understand redemption but I just didn't feel it in this case. It's just a feeling or an opinion. I was kind of curious what other people felt. I don't get into movies much but obviously Blade Runner is a favorite. juniperjones posted:You say that like it's an opinion. He is a brutal murderer. Whether or not you think it's justified or understandable is up for debate. I personally empathized with his character but don't believe it justified brutal murder. True, perhaps I used the wrong wording.
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
In order to keep Roy and the other replicants from becoming too human through experiences they are given 5 year lifespans, which backs Roy into a corner and makes him desperate, which means he does inhuman things to preserve himself. The five year plan results in him caving in his creator's skull in anger at the unfairness of his predicament, which of course is used as evidence that he's gone completely psycho and needs to be retired immediately. In other words his creator created his inhumanity through his protocols. Very sad. The whole drat film is so sad without being completely hopeless. That's one of the things I love about it.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
If Roy's a Brutal murderer, so is Deckard. That's kind of the theme of the film, when you get right down to it. Deckard hunts down replicants for a day job, while Roy kills people in a series of ultimately futile attempts to live just that little bit longer. Both characters kill thinking, feeling beings over the course of the film for rather dubious reasons. In Deckard's case, he has the backing of the state and the police, a literal mandate for murder. To phrase it another way, do you feel sorry for Deckard? EDIT: Roy and co are pretty much escaped slaves. If a group of slaves revolted against their masters and a few unfortunate folks in the ruling caste were killed in the process, wouldn't you be able to at least sympathize with the rebellious slaves? Was Spartacus nothing more than a brutal, murdering war criminal? TomViolence fucked around with this message at 08:36 on May 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 08:11
|
|
|
I was thinking more along the lines of Amistad myself. I've yet to hear anyone say the slaves were in the wrong in that movie, though I'm sure some racist assholes would say otherwise.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
It wasnt a murderer because only persons can be murdrerers.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
Do people regularly miss the point of Blade Runner completely? Is that a thing that happens often? Its a fairly challenging film for mainstream audiences and there's not a whole lot of action, I'd think anyone who seeks it out and watches it will have seen plenty of sci-fi before. I just don't get how you can watch the whole thing, get to the end, and still think of Batty as just a run-of-the-mill bloodthirsty villain who the heroic Deckard needs to put down for the good of society. The entire film and almost every line of dialogue is pleading with you to think about the issues of humanity, identity, what it means to be alive, what it means to die, etc., and then apply all that to Batty's situation. Maybe this is why they thought it needed a voiceover.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
massive spider posted:It wasnt a murderer because only persons can be murdrerers. Batty is clearly sapient and capable of free thought. Doesn't that qualify him for personhood?
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Do people regularly miss the point of Blade Runner completely? Hundreds of millions of Christians are unaware that the Bible advocates literal and total socialism. Missing the point is something people have become quite adept at.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Yes, but clicked all options out of spite you poo poo poll maker OP
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 03:55
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:Batty is clearly sapient and capable of free thought. Doesn't that qualify him for personhood? According to certain voices in the Ex Machina thread, no. To summarize, because Batty is an artificial intelligence*, it is fundamentally impossible that he is a person. So even to the extent that he acts like a person, he is actually 'beyond personhood,' which conveniently explodes ethics into a million pieces and removes from you, the 'real' person, the burden of actually having to make a decision about what is right or wrong when confronting this 'beyond person.' *In this point of view, you need to remember that artificial intelligence is being treated as a literal phenomena, not a metaphor.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 05:28
|
|
|
K. Waste posted:According to certain voices in the Ex Machina thread, no. To summarize, because Batty is an artificial intelligence*, it is fundamentally impossible that he is a person. So even to the extent that he acts like a person, he is actually 'beyond personhood,' which conveniently explodes ethics into a million pieces and removes from you, the 'real' person, the burden of actually having to make a decision about what is right or wrong when confronting this 'beyond person.' So as long as we are complimentary towards the artificial intelligence("beyond human" vs. "sub-human"), that makes it ok to throw all ethics out the window. Interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 15:03
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:So as long as we are complimentary towards the artificial intelligence("beyond human" vs. "sub-human"), that makes it ok to throw all ethics out the window. Interesting. It's basically just cynicism disguised as transhumanism. 'This superior being could be planning anything! It could just want to make us into slaves!' (Meanwhile, 'superior being' is being enslaved.)
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 15:08
|
|
|
I just want to see a movie of Roy's life, esp. the space part.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
The dramatic impact of that monologue is precisely that we as an audience will never see the things Roy has seen. It's actually quite a beautiful conceit, which in the era of modern reboots means it will be promptly be unraveled in Blade Runner: Reloaded as the camera opens on a sweeping, computer-generated vista of attack ships off the shoulder of Orion.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:The dramatic impact of that monologue is precisely that we as an audience will never see the things Roy has seen. It's actually quite a beautiful conceit, which in the era of modern reboots means it will be promptly be unraveled in Blade Runner: Reloaded as the camera opens on a sweeping, computer-generated vista of attack ships off the shoulder of Orion. Absolutely, the monologue is there to emphasize that Roy has had experiences that regular humans couldn't even dream of. What Deckard comes to realize in that final scene on the rooftop is that Roy has "lived" much more than Deckard has in just a fraction of the time. A replicant is able to connect with his own sense of humanity more than Deckard ever has. This stuff is why some people are resistant to the idea that Deckard is actually a replicant himself, which would undercut that somewhat.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think Deckard being a replicant adds to the story at all. Seems like a twist for the sake of being a twist, but I'm open to some arguments that might change my mind.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
It's not important that Deckard IS a replicant, but that Deckard COULD be a replicant. It's the ambiguity that makes it interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
exquisite tea posted:It's not important that Deckard IS a replicant, but that Deckard COULD be a replicant. It's the ambiguity that makes it interesting. Yeah, the POSSIBILITY I like, especially since it pushes the theme of the "fake human" replicants truly being more human than the humans. But it sucks too much out of the film if the protagonist is firmly placed in the non-human camp, not to mention there are some logical problems with it (why break the law to put a replicant on the street with a license to kill but absolutely none of the physical improvements replicants normally bring to a job?) that while not insurmountable do kind of undercut the story. As for the original question, I suppose I do pity Roy at the end, but primarily because he finally did rise above his function at the end. He was born a soldier and pretty much his entire thing during the film was "kill my enemies", it was an important moment that he finally could turn around and save an enemy out of nothing more than compassion. I agree with the people who complain Roy was a killer, and I don't think one moment at the end of his life makes up for everything he did, but at least it was a start that might have gone somewhere if he'd had more time. Hence the tragedy of the whole thing, it was a moment of redemption that might have become the full thing if given a chance.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
The entire film's thesis would be completely nullified if Decker were explicitly stated to be a replicant or not.
|
|
#
?
May 29, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
PowerBuilder3 posted:I just want to see a movie of Roy's life, esp. the space part. What did you think of Soldier, if you've seen it? [I'm not suggesting that he should be considered as Roy Batty, but curious to know reactions.]
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 03:42
|
|
|
MadDogMike posted:(why break the law to put a replicant on the street with a license to kill but absolutely none of the physical improvements replicants normally bring to a job?) I like to think that Holden died and they put his memories and skills in Deckard.
|
|
#
?
May 31, 2015 11:21
|
|
|
If he's not a person then he can't really be a murderer anymore than a meat grinder is a murderer in an industrial accident. If he is a person then what's happened to him is pretty hosed up and he's a victim as well, he's a bit like a child soldier. His monologue didn't particularly move me, but his response to Pris getting killed and the aftermath leading up to the monologue (particularly breaking Deckard's fingers) made me feel a lot of pity for him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 04:50
|
|
|
CharlesM posted:Even though it adds a lot of meaning to his character and I love that scene, I think he's still a brutal murderer. Of course you're supposed to feel sympathy for him, he's a slave child-soldier come back to wreak his revenge on the horrible system that enslaved him. What does he do wrong? He kills some slavers and slave-takers. It's like an escaped slave on a mission to find Jefferson Davis and get freedom or revenge and you guys are rooting for the slave-catcher? MadDogMike posted:As for the original question, I suppose I do pity Roy at the end, but primarily because he finally did rise above his function at the end. He was born a soldier and pretty much his entire thing during the film was "kill my enemies", it was an important moment that he finally could turn around and save an enemy out of nothing more than compassion. No he was a mutineer. He was doing exactly the opposite of what he was designed for. He killed his officers (before the opening) and then went after the military-industrial-complex. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 05:40 on Jun 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 05:36
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Of course you're supposed to feel sympathy for him, he's a slave child-soldier come back to wreak his revenge on the horrible system that enslaved him. What does he do wrong? He kills some slavers and slave-takers. It's like an escaped slave on a mission to find Jefferson Davis and get freedom or revenge and you guys are rooting for the slave-catcher? Stripping out the subtly and reducing Blade Runner to "good replicants versus evil humans" completely misses the point of the film. Batty isn't some simplistic CineD hero of the revolution out to free the slaves or overthrow capitalism. He came to Earth because he didn't want to die. He kills J.F. Sebastian, who was in the same condition he was, because he is angry and frustrated at his own mortality. Reading the replicants as "more-human-than-human" reduces them to hyper-real caricatures and restores the book's message that they could only ever "fake" empathy. The entire point of Blade Runner is that it is growing impossible to find a measurable difference between replicants and humans.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 07:21
|
|
|
Popping in to say that if you prefer the Final Cut you are a terrible person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 15:44
|
|
|
vivisectvnv posted:Popping in to say that if you prefer the Final Cut you are a terrible person.  This is going to be great. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
There's a cut that was done before the Final Cut that also has no voiceover right? I guess I can kinda see how someone could prefer that but I've never heard anyone say they like the voiceover version.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
I liked the voiceover, though I don't know if I prefer it to the Final Cut.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 19:59
|
|
|
vivisectvnv posted:Popping in to say that if you prefer the Final Cut you are a terrible person. Which cut is your favorite? I've only seen the Final and bits of the Director's off the top of my head.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
The Director's Cut and Final Cut are both fine. Especially compared to the original cut.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Saw it in the cinema recently and felt sorry for Batty.
|
|
#
?
Jun 1, 2015 22:35
|
|
|
The Final Cut is the one with narration and jarring cgi right? Yeah that one is poo poo. Edit: Nm confused Final Cut with the Theatrical Cut, carry on. vivisectvnv fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jun 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 09:08
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:Saw it in the cinema recently and felt sorry for Batty. vivisectvnv posted:The Final Cut is the one with narration and jarring cgi right? Yeah that one is poo poo. Uhhh no... there's no such edition. No CGI. Final cut does not have narration, only the 1982 theatrical cut did.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 09:28
|
|
|
vivisectvnv posted:The Final Cut is the one with narration and jarring cgi right? Yeah that one is poo poo. Hahaha, man. I knew about it, but I've never seen that version before. That's terrible.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 09:41
|
|
|
You know what? I kinda like that. I like the scene in the narration-free versions better, but it still works pretty well with the narration, mostly because they weren't completely ham-handed with where they put it. Man, to have been in a theater in 1982 and seen that poo poo for the first time. Even in its original form I'd be going to bat like hell for that movie.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 09:49
|
|
|
LORD OF BUTT posted:Man, to have been in a theater in 1982 and seen that poo poo for the first time. Even in its original form I'd be going to bat like hell for that movie. I saw Blade Runner for the first time after I was already plenty jaded by hundreds of other sci-fi movies, and I was something like 25 years old, so not a young kid. I didn't get to see it in a theatre but my set-up was pretty drat good so I feel like I got a pretty full experience. It absolutely blew my mind and changed the way I see the genre forever. The scene at the beginning where the camera slowly approaches the gigantic building, with the music playing and everything, just.....man. The movie burroughed into my brain and pretty much hasn't left since. Its one of my most worn-out blu rays, I probably watch it once every other month.
|
|
#
?
Jun 2, 2015 15:40
|
|
|
murder I can forgive but that was one corny-rear end speech and deserved the death penalty like you just knw he didn't make that poo poo up off the cuff, self-indulgent bitch was pacing around the apartment of that murdered idiot savant dude rehearsing his dumb soliloquy
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
I don't consider Roy a murderer. He wasn't even "human", so it's more like an industrial accident where a machine went haywire and some people died. Except that it was a biological machine that had human DNA which was indistinguishable from a human being and who was suffering under slavery to a fascist empire. He killed those people directly involved in the creation of his kind or involved in the industry directly oppressing them. I see nothing wrong with his actions from that standpoint. Would you fault a slave for killing their master who brutally used them up for their own benefit without any thought for the slave? If anything Roy and his group could have easily targeted the general populous who also supported and benefited from their enslavement. He wouldn't have been wrong in doing so either. None of them were innocent in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jun 3, 2015 04:56
|
|
|
Roy was a programmed killer, who became mutineer, who carried on killing in his own personal quest for longer life. Deckard too was a (lets ignore the 'is he a replicant or isnt he?' argument for now)programmed killer of replicants through training, who never mutineered, even when he had the chance to do so. When the chips were down, it was Roy who showed humanity and compassion, nay even mercy for his enemy when he didn't need too on the rooftops. Deckard would never have shown such compassion and if he had the chance would have gunned Roy down without hesitation. This is why I always like to dismiss the argument of whether Deckard is a replicant or not as I feel it diminishes from the message I personally receive from the film, and that is who is the more human?
|
|
#
?
Jun 4, 2015 20:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 24, 2024 15:14 |
|
|
Microcline posted:Stripping out the subtly and reducing Blade Runner to "good replicants versus evil humans" completely misses the point of the film. Batty isn't some simplistic CineD hero of the revolution out to free the slaves or overthrow capitalism. He came to Earth because he didn't want to die. He kills J.F. Sebastian, who was in the same condition he was, because he is angry and frustrated at his own mortality. Reading the replicants as "more-human-than-human" reduces them to hyper-real caricatures and restores the book's message that they could only ever "fake" empathy. The entire point of Blade Runner is that it is growing impossible to find a measurable difference between replicants and humans. The replicants aren't inherently good and the humans aren't inherently bad. But look at what we know from the film. All of the replicants are basically slaves. You have a sex slave, a labor drone, and a couple slave soldiers looking to escape the conditions of their bondage -- more life. (And obviously they're not going to cheerfully go back to work after they get it.) Arrayed against them is a system that hunts and kills these slaves. People that the replicants kill are: a blade runner (slave-catcher), a guy who works on slave eyes, a guy who designs slaves, and the head of a corporation that breeds and sells slaves. Sure Sebastien was sympathetic, but his daily bread comes from this system of oppression. So does Decker's. Maybe you think I'm "missing the point" of the film but this stuff I'm saying isn't even subtext. It's all there in the text. The main character is part of an immoral system (does Decker seem happy to be doing this job?) and the antagonists are struggling against that system. Whatever point you think the movie was supposed to have, why is it incompatible with talking about the morality of the characters' actions? How is anything you said about Batty -- he doesn't want to die, he's angry and frustrated, he kills -- incompatible with what you quoted?
|
|
#
?
Jun 5, 2015 05:46
|
|