Wasn't that the point of Blade Runner though?, that they weren't different and humans were oppressing them and denying them human rights, much like we've done to ourselves historically. Love Kubrick's films and Blade Runner so not a big deal.
But we made a distinction. Why not make the replicants distinct from humans? Surely it's easier to kick around a robot vacuum than a replicant/human vacuuming. Right?
And that's crossover with "A.i." I don't know how long he worked on it but- maybe that was supposed to be his response? (To whatever bothered him). Annoying that he didnt get to make it because no one makes films that FEEL quite like Kubricks films. Spielberg has an entirely different emotional approach, especially once he got older- and his version feels oddly saccharine to me compared to Kubrick's work- which always unflinchingly challenges the viewer. I don't understand how Spielberg carried that over at all.
@@grisflyt I love his early movies. He was like- a great - chronicler of the pop culture of the 70's. After ET though I felt he never really- I think he went like wanting to be a serious director like the way woody Allen wanted to make serious dramas. And he has a voice that was a little cheaper than Lean's or Kubrick - but it was Warm and - fitting. Spielberg started out as The Carpenters and tried to turn himself into Leonard Cohen
if Deckard was a replicant, he would not have been able to live past 4 years to put in his 20 years in the police force in order to retire (with a pension retire, lol). Ignoring the fact that replicants are retired on sight, on Earth. Philip K. Dick wrote the book explicitly explaining Deckard is human, so it's no surprise that he's clearly human in the movie as well, despite Ridley Scott's desperate attempts to portray him as a replicant. Alternate ending #2 includes one of those failed attempts; with Rachel saying "we were made for each other". But it was so out of character and fake, it was too artificial even for a replicant, and that ending was never used.
@@tryscienceobviously no one is suggesting that Deckard in the novel is a replicant/android or could be reasonably interpreted as such. But Svott made a movie only using the setting and trappings of the book; I suspect entertaining the creation themes he later revisited in "Prometheus", creating more of a retelling of Frankenstein (itself a retelling of Milton's "Paradise Lost") - the responsibility of a creator of sentience etc. In THE FILM- I think the idea Scott has (from here on everything mentioned is entertaining Scott's interpretation) is that Deckard is a replicant "plant"- all his memories of being on the police force/city bladerunner are implants, the conversation he has with his boss is his FIRST conversation with him EVER- he was a rep designed especially to hunt down Batty et al. Thus Deckard only has *memories* of people- in the movie we don't meet one single person from his life (though he does have a conversation with the first replicant interrogator we see [Holden?] in outtakes but he could be aware of Deckard's status if we take both the outtake and Scott's proposition seriously). It's not that Scott makes an airtight argument. It's just that in HIS mind that's the story he told. To be fair to your point, Ford is appalled at the idea.
@@Mister_W.T.F I'll respectfully disagree - The whole reason that Police Chief Bryant brought Deckard out of retirement, is because Bryant knows Deckard is an especially effective Blade Runner. Besides, it's the unpredictability of replicants, which caused them to be banned on Earth in the first place. In Deckard, Bryant has a trusted and reliable ally, not at all an unpredictable replicant masquerading illegally as a blade runner.
@@Mister_W.T.F The fact that Ridley Scott worked to make Deckard a replicant, obviously is Scott's preference - but the story was crafted by Philip K. Dick to be the opposite. So Scott's effort I compare to dressing up and putting perfume on a pig. He may dress it like a person, it may smell pretty, but it's still a pig. The guts are not human. Or in this case, the guts of the lead character, Deckard, ARE human. And that's what puts more weight behind Deckard's observations that the replicants were just trying to be more like us. If "us" are replicants, meaning Deckard is a replicant, the argument makes no sense.
@@tryscience I think I've allowed myself to be misunderstood. If one takes the line that Deckard ISN'T a replicant, what you say absolutely holds the line. If one entertains Scott's PROPOSITION - both Rachael AND Deckard are a new line of Replicants that are "more human than human". Deckard being brought in to test Rachael is really a test of how welk Deckard's implants are embedded, and "mouse cage" behaviour by Tyrell and the Police Departmen I *THINK* it's the Nexus 6 line that is particularly unstable in the dialogue but correct me if I'm mistaken. This isnt a "one interpretation is right, one is wrong" argument. It's adhering to one version over the other, the respective elements we are both detailing lining up in each case. You kind of get TWO movies for the price of one- the one you're talking about- which is how *i* pretty much prefer to watch it as, and the Scott/replicant Deckard version - which sort of hovers in the background for me as a kind of- alternative reading. But overall I enjoy it as a mood piece, and a meditation on the sanctity of sentience and the arrogance of humanity to "play God" (where it can) without always giving full thought to the consequence. In the Scott/Deckard=replicant version, it's even more tragic that both Batty AND Deckard are 100% victims of such. Batty may even KNOW Deckard is a replicant (lots of fun fan theories about the "missing replicant" from Deckard's briefing due to an edit issue that never got resolved in post production) and may, seeing the cruelty of th ed situation- realize that he would be killing his own when he us himself about to die, only their human Slave Masters benefitting. It would also be important that the replicants have red blood, rather than Scott carrying over the idea of white hydraulic fluid from the android Ash in his previous science fiction film featuring such, "Alien". Scott wanted to preserve uncertainty and if the replicants had had a colour of "blood" that was recognizably artificial then Deckard's own blood would have given itaway. (Though Deckard getting si badly beaten up was a choice Scott made that could have been avoided also of course ).
It doesn't sound like SK understood the basic plot. It mattered whether they were replicants because they were built to be servants so we could forget about them and treat them like dirt. It was only when they became homicidal that they began intruding on purely human territory and we had to "care" about them. That could not be tolerated.
Slavery is built on a distinction, albeit superficial. If this distinction didn't exist, there would be no "justification" for slavery. If you want something to be treated as dirt, why make it indistinguishable from your own?
The reason it was important to be able to tell who was human and who wasn't, was that the replicants had become a direct threat to humans. It's like saying there was no need to know who was incubating a Xenomorph in Alien, and they should have just all gotten along on the ship forever in peace and harmony. You needed to know for a very specific reason...
@@caeserromero3013 Maybe the novel gives a backstory, but these things aren't (fully) explained in the film, as I remember. If they are a threat, why are they still being used and manufactured? Why not make them blue and, more important, stop making them self-aware. Based on my understanding, the society in Blade Runner makes Nazi Germany look like heaven on earth. The society in Blade Runner is a society of literal monsters, and I use literal literally correct.
Its weird that Kubrick wouldn't get a movie. Maybe he was trolling a bit? And then of course theres his (arguably awkwardly posthumously realized by Spielberg) "A.I." film which strays into the same territory...
I don't remember it ever being a question about who was a replicant or not. The *audience* might wonder if Deckard is one, but the film is clear about who else is a Replicant. I honestly have no idea what this woman, and therefore by extension Kubrick, was referring to.
Kubrick obviously wasn't paying any attention to Blade Runner because if had paid attention he'd know that Rachel is revealed to be a Replicant by Tyrell in the very first act of the film. The rest of the film is not trying to determine whether or not she's real, it's whether or not her emotions are real regardless of her being a Replicant. He also seemed to have missed the part where it was explained that Rachel was given false memories that belonged to Tyrell's niece, leading Rachel to question whether or not anything she felt, including her love for Deckard, was genuine or just a preprogrammed response, eliminating the possibility of individual choice on her part.
@@Mister_W.T.F The question of whether or not Deckard was a replicant was not in the original theatrical version. That was added into the director's cut with the unicorn dream.
@@44excalibur that's a very good point - but its not as simple as "Deckard = Rep" began only after directors cut (or whatever its called)- the question of Deckards nature was being discussed by fans long before then , AND- I definitely recall being thrown (on multiple watches) by a "lit iris" moment for Fords eyes, when they have the bright circle as we saw with the Owl (and I think Rachael also-) its brief, but it's there. I agree that the tin foil unicorn model left Gaff is much less meaningful without the unicorn sequence- but it was heavily implied it was apropos of *SOMETHING*. And the fact there were two (correct me I'm wrong) and they were fashioned out of tin foil - (again correct me if I misremember) metal figures was at least an eerie indication that Gaff knew something of Deckards nature he might himself not know. We certainly know it's been Scott's intention that Deckard is a replicant from at least shooting onward, and I think what we have are multiple "leaks" into the film of this- even without the unicorn footage in place (I've always hated the unicorn bit- I don't know why. It doesnt fit at all for me. I wish he'd found another way to let us know that Gaff knew his internal thoughts/dreams and therefore nature without splicing an aesthetically aberrant (in my opinion) sequence into a film that's got a very strong visual identity.) I take your point though. But it was out there before, trust me
@@Mister_W.T.F But Deckard wasn't a replicant in the original book by Philip K. Dick, so I never really saw that as much of an issue until the director's cut came out.
@@44excalibur I *KNOW*, right? I felt the Saaaaame!!! The first time I heard the theory I was kind of offended by it- because I originally thought the bueaty of the movie (again contradicting the book though) was that Deckard overcame his prejudice towards replicants- and the movie made a meaningful case for both Humans being more accepting of anything sentient, as well as a modern retelling of the "creation responsibility" story of Paradise Lost/ Frankenstein. So I FEEL you, man- but Scott has gone on the record since. However, so has Ford, who disagrees and did NOT play Deckard as a replicant. The sequel very skillfully evades committing completely I noticed! Re the novel- there IS that bit when another Bladerunner from the completely replicant populated side of town realizes HE is a replicant- and I SUSPECT that is where Scott closed on that idea. For one thing that entire subplot is MISSING from the movie- arguably making Deckard a fusion of both those characters if we take Scott at his word. I think the book definitely sets out Deckard as human, still married, morally frail, insecure and status orientated. While the Deckard in the film has no more EVIDENCE of his marriage or his previous life, or rat race concerns than Rachael. I'm not saying its RIGHT, or fidelitous to the novel or Dicks intentions, but I suspect it's the film we got... 😁🙏👊
I dont know if its just the way shes explaining her memory of what Kubrick said, but the movie doesn't really spend that much of the film trying to figure out if any of the replicates are replicants, thats basically only one scene in the film that maybe spans 5 mins. Her character is in denial the reset of the film but we all know what she is...
Not only is there no difference between the character of that of the replicants and those of the humans - the human beings, in contrast to their replicant counterparts, actually have a lot less humanity and character in them than the replicants do. The initial interview scene shows a replicant becoming frustrated with the boredom and absurdity of a silly psychological questionnaire is exactly the same way that an actual human being would lose their patience during a quiz and there is a tension which appears more to be implying an educational and social difference and gap rather than an inherent, ontological difference. The replicant represented through his impatience during the test a certain rough-neck, recalcitrant contempt for bureaucratic over-reach into personal life by the technocrat; ''Let me tell you about my mother!'' Which by being more rough around the edges, more sloppy and out of place in the interview, makes him seem to be an actual human being moreso than his interviewer. Harrison Ford also doesn't have nearly as much development of character as his nemesis, who actually reaches a conclusive state of catharsis by the end. No, there is nothing inherently special about Blade Runner's notion of artificial intelligence and the difference between a replicant and human has no philosophical interest - rather what is of philosophic interest in the script, is Blade Runner not as a science fiction but as a film noir. What makes Blade Runner a great classic, is not that Replicants represent the inhuman in comparison to the human, but that Replicants, like in classic Film Noir, are figures of humanity that exist on the fringes of the urban wastes of a modern, alienated society. In Film Noir the hero is as morally ambiguous, blurring the distinction with the villain, the Android woman in Blade Runner, is a re-dressed up version of the Femme Fatale.
My theory about blade runner is that EVERYBODY was a replicant. They simply had made up the replicant theory as a means of control. As that cop says "she won't live.....but then....who does?"
interesting theory, although I think that line hits harder for me as a mere reference to our own mortality. as in, is there any difference? We too are only here for such a short time
@@knurdyob But then he would have SAID 'who does....forever'. But yeah, its just a theory:) But in the film the director has said point blank that Decker is also a replicant. Given AI, the genius of the three 'makers' who end up dead would likely be replicants, leaving the humans to be 'the little people'. But like I said, its just a theory:)
Wow this little bit of insight about Kubrick actually made me lose a bit of respect for him. Bladerunner wasn't about "figuring out which character was a Replicant or not" as much as it was about things like what it meant to be human or whether emotions are real even if they're based on implants. If Kubrick really didn't get that core part of the story then I feel sorry for him.
The point of the novel is that Dechert has lost his humanity by becoming a professional killer without a conscience. The fact that the Replicants are indistinguishable from regular humans is ironic.
Normally I would bash on those who dare to criticize the 2d best sci-fi film of all time, but I’ll give him a pass simply because he directed the best sci-fi film of all time.
Huh? Rachel is an experimental Nexus-7 replicant created by Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel). This is stated early on in the film and is in no way made ambiguous. Is this lady thinking of the right movie?
Kubrick's criticism is more about the relationship between humans and androids, probably a problem he also had with Dick's original story. For Kubrick, since replicants are 'equal' to humans, it does not matter to ask the question whether they are artificial or not. I suppose he would have appreciated BR 2049 more. And anyway, 'this lady' spent almost a year talking daily with Kubrick about what it might mean to be an android.
Sounds like he totally got what the movie was saying, but didn't realize that that they were making him feel this on purpose; his complaint is the very point of the film.
I always wondered why the lengthy psychological tests when all they needed was a simple blood draw or metal detector to determine if their a replicant or a cylon or whatever
Blade runner was really meandering though. Like ridley Scott thought he was going to make a masterpiece just because he was impressed by the comics of moebius. He needed a better screenwriter and editor for blade runner. Technically it's very polished and has standout music, but no real plot and no editing. Ridley doesn't have the skill to stretch out a thin plot. I never really felt the need to rewatch it and that was pretty much how I felt the first time. Like why does it matter so much. Now br2049 was much better in that regard. Feels like K actually does detective work instead of meandering nonsense. The only part that was terrible was the Harrison Ford part. That guy never puts any effort into any of his characters. He's just there like an expensive mantle piece.
Ridley Scott himself said in an interview that he was a replicant, but Ridley Scott also originally didn't even think of that idea and then went heavy in on it in his later versions after the theory became popular. If he was a replicant, there's lots that makes no sense, and it would be a bit stupid. I think the right choice was made with the sequel.
I truly wish that Kubrick had stuck with A. I. and set aside Eyes Wide Shut. Although Spielberg swears that he was faithful to Stanley's vision I find this hard to believe and it is clearly a product of Spielberg 's brand of sentimentalized manipulative schmaltz. Anyone familiar with Kubrick knows that the script he has prepared as he goes into production is just a framework and it can change whenever the director is inspired. In Full Metal Jacket he had no clear idea what he wanted as an ending and was periodically prodding the actors for their input. A. I. would have been completely different from what was eventually released. But in a way it does connect with Blade Runner and Roy Batty's search to extend his limited lifespan, just as David wanted the Blue Fairy to turn him into a real boy. Both are predestined to fail in their respective objectives, although Batty's assessment of his experiences are much more memorable.
Spielberg added two scenes. The spinach eating at the dinner table, and pool scene. Everything else is almost to the word the screen story Ian Watson wrote for Stanley in 1990/91.
Me here scratching my head as I remember that every viewer of that movie finds out she's a replicant within minutes of her appearing in the movie based in a world where replicants are deemed less than secondary citizens
This confirms that Stanley was human too. And commited mistakes. Not every movie should be Kubrickean. I love his movies. As any sane Cinema fan but Ridley Scott is also one of the greatest. Thank God we have Stanley and Ridley.
Who is this woman in the video clip How does she know that Kubrick felt that way Besides that it's an it's an interesting Proposition if you will of weather people are real or not Because if you think about it most people are not real they're simply prepared faces to meet the prepared faces that they meet as TS Eliot So wonderfully put
the film isnt about if Sean Young is a replicant, its about if Deckard himself is replicant or human. Its about a sense of identity and dreams and of course what it means to be alive or sentient.
Seems he missed the whole point of the movie in my eyes. That it shouldn't matter at all. I saw Blade Runner as a ten year old in 1985, it had such a profound impact on me even then that I had to watch it all over again straight after. I think it was part of the reason I became an atheist at quite a young age, for the very reason mentioned, how can there be a soul in this complex machine.
This was my exact problem with The Creator. Other than having a big hole in the side of their heads, the robots in that film did everything that a human does, to the point where it was irrelevant that they were robots at all
We will never know what Stanley Kubrick thought of Blade Runner or any other thing unless there is filmed, recorded or written documentation by him alone. We do know that human memory is creative. That means that with time memory changes facts and fill blank spaces with inventions of its own.
Why do people in this comment section think that what she's saying is verbatim for what Stanley Kubrick actually said? Blade Runner came out in 1982 so he probably made the remarks around then because Stanley Kubrick died 25 years ago in 1999. We pretty much have to take what she's saying when speaking on behalf of Stanley Kubrick with a bit of skepticism and not the exact words said by Stanley Kubrick, since I would believe Stanley Kubrick would have understood the movie better than her since she's making so many mistakes about what occurred in the movie.
@@stanleyandus - If that's true it's still strange what she gets wrong about Blade Runner. I get that they probably spoke quite a bit about AI since Stanley Kubrick wanted to make the movie Artificial Intelligence which Steven Spielberg ended up making.
it mattered..... because one day we might get to the point, where technology will get so good, that we won't be able to tell the difference between actual human and a replicant...... it may not have mattered specifically for the movie, but as a general idea for the society, it surely did
Well that was sorta the point. If you cant tell the difference, is there one? Are the fact that humans are treating replicants as slaves just because they are artificial actually a justifiable reason or just a something people tell themselves so they don't have to feel bad?
I love prime Ridley, but Kubrick would have done it better. He would have explored the world further, given us more sets and explored Deckard more than the Replicants
No, Kubrick is wrong regardless. Rachel is revealed to be a Replicant within the first 15 minutes of the movie when Tyrell explains what she is to Deckard. Kubrick doesn't know what he's talking about.
This is hard to believe, frankly, Kubrick had great insight, so I’m surprised he was annoyed by the question of Rachel being real or not. That’s the point, isn’t it? does ‘real’ matter? What is real anyway? What does it mean to ‘live’? Deckard's job is getting harder because the replicants have become indistinguishable from humans. Historically, dehumanising people is the route to removing their rights, likening them to animals or objects opens the door to their elimination. In addition Kubrick’s own footage is used in Bladerunner, he leant it to Scott, so it’s likely he would have been a bit more aware than most of what was driving it.
It's a movie about an entire society that believes they are human, and yet none of them are. They are all replicants. And they don't know. That's what Stanley was missing.
Bladerunner is a great visual-audio experience, but the story and script is flawed in so many ways. It diesnt surprise me that Kubrick would have not liked it.
No, he doesn't. Rachel is revealed to be a replicant right after her character is introduced. It didn't take more than half of the movie to figure that out.
this explains why Ridley Scott always sounds so salty about some of Kubrick's films like The Shining, interesting. personally I think Kubrick is wrong here about Blade Runner, but so is Ridley Scott regarding The Shining
So, Kubrick hated Blade Runner because it shouldn't matter if Rarchel is a replicant or not. That's the whole fucking point of both the movie and the source material, Phillip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. One of the recurring themes of many of Dick's works was the question of personal morality vs. the societal construct of morality, particularly when they conflicted.
Makes perfect sense except... Rachel was told she was a replicant, before the film was 30 percent finished. Deckard realized Rachel was a replicant, 19 percent into the film. Since when is 30 percent greater than 70 percent? Maybe Kubrick didn't hate the film nearly as much as the lady suggests, because her whole premise why he hated the film, is demonstrably false.
the movie is about deckhard's job, thats why it always mattered. and that also was needed because TWIST. i'm not going to spoil it if you for some reason are here but have not seen blade runner. and finally -- kubrick made a much bigger mistake giving AI over to spielberg before he died. good grief did that drag on and on for nothing.
Of course it didn’t matter to Kubrick, because he’d be in a white robe playing chess with his fake owl. Look at the way he treats his actors. He’d cast Replicants all day. They’re built for 80 takes. I mean, in the end, he WOULD get thumbs through his eyes, but up until then, he’d think everything was fine.
I'm not saying she's wrong, but something's off in the account here. More than half of the film isn't spent on finding out whether Sean Young is a replicant - it is stated in her first scene, early on in the movie, that she is. So either Maitland or Kubrick remembers it wrong.
Dunno, Kubrick was know for making shorthand quips; I don’t think he was making a formal review. He famously remarked to Spielberg that he had a movie about the Holocaust about the people who lived (and not the millions who had died). Anyways, he was a film maker not s reviewer so was probably making off the cuff remarks.
@@jeehoonlee5150 But what he said about Schindler's List is true, or at least a valid opinon. The plot of Blade Runner simply isn't what is stated here. Like I said, he could have just remembered it wrong.
I guess he didn't get that replicants were made to work as slaves on Elon's Mars colony with limited life span to never create a substantial revolution and one of them happens to be the love interest of Deckard
And yet the difference between how 'natural' people and artificial people are treated is the main premise of AI. So it sounds like Stanley's dislike of Bladerunner could be chalked up to competitive jealousy.
unless we had kubricks statement on this, i dont think we can ascertain what exactly he meant from others accounts, maybe from his point of view, they were just machines since the unicorn dream sequence wasnt originally present in the film if im not mistaken, i dont know
On the contrary, for him they were perfectly 'human'. If you want to know more about Kubrick's thinking on androids and artificial intelligence in general, I invite you to watch the first episode of our series on Vimeo (vimeo.com/ondemand/stanleyandus).
Wait, I don't think Blade Runner had a point. It was about a guy hunting robots and almost getting killed again and again. Much like many of Kubrick's movies, it comes across as mostly hollow and earns its reputation on technical achievement.
@@stanleyandus his intentions was AI were cynical. Hayley Joel Osment part for example, he wanted him to show that no matter how human he looked, he still wouldn't be a human. Which is kinda how I see Kubrick personal belief on je mankind.
I'm not really sure we can confidently accept this aggressive, decades-after-the-fact testimony on face value. It seems somehow "off," exaggerated, and misremembered. 🤔 It makes me leery of the reality that, from now on, we're going to be hearing from people whose memories may get more detailed and baroque as time passes. Best wishes from Vermont ❄️
I’ve never been a big fan of Blade Runner. Its storyline is too basic for me. It has great set design and an interesting twist at the end but it’s by-the-numbers.
He probably would have avoided all that part about androids and "artificial intelligence" as a danger to mankind. I think he considered Blade Runner to be too closely linked to the Frankenstein myth, which he disliked. Certainly this would have impacted on much of the story of Blade Runner, but Kubrick saw artificial intelligence as a legacy of humanity, perhaps the only thing that will remain of our civilisation, as seen in 'A.I artificial intelligence'. We devoted the first episode of our series to 'A.I. Artificial intelligence' (The Pinocchio project), in which Kubrick's thoughts on A.I. are more elaborate.
The way I'd always interpreted the plot was that the real secret was that Rachael was Deckard's unicorn: her span was not limited to four years. Being a prototype, her genetic engineering far exceeded that of other Replicants. The scientific team had unwittingly engineered a human being through synthetic means. Rachael was protected and honored as a daughter. The movie was not about Rachael finding out she's a replicant but about she and Deckard discovering she is actually human and what they would do with that revelation. The other replicants sensed they were on the threshold, but they knew they fell short. More than anything else, they wanted to be human. Only Rachael was blessed with the prize. Deckard claimed it. He found his unicorn.
Lol wut? Kind of a stupid criticism, demanding that every element of a sci-fi society be logical. Of course people obsess on identity. Always have. Distinguishing between humans and replicants would be a visceral issue to most people.
Wasn't that the point of Blade Runner though?, that they weren't different and humans were oppressing them and denying them human rights, much like we've done to ourselves historically. Love Kubrick's films and Blade Runner so not a big deal.
But we made a distinction. Why not make the replicants distinct from humans? Surely it's easier to kick around a robot vacuum than a replicant/human vacuuming. Right?
And that's crossover with "A.i." I don't know how long he worked on it but- maybe that was supposed to be his response? (To whatever bothered him). Annoying that he didnt get to make it because no one makes films that FEEL quite like Kubricks films. Spielberg has an entirely different emotional approach, especially once he got older- and his version feels oddly saccharine to me compared to Kubrick's work- which always unflinchingly challenges the viewer. I don't understand how Spielberg carried that over at all.
@@Mister_W.T.F Spielberg is a competent director, but also pretty vapid. E.g. his Holocaust schlock movie.
@@grisflyt I love his early movies. He was like- a great - chronicler of the pop culture of the 70's. After ET though I felt he never really- I think he went like wanting to be a serious director like the way woody Allen wanted to make serious dramas. And he has a voice that was a little cheaper than Lean's or Kubrick - but it was Warm and - fitting. Spielberg started out as The Carpenters and tried to turn himself into Leonard Cohen
@@Mister_W.T.F I don't mind Spielberg as such. He does what he loves. I can't hate on that. haven't seen many of his movies. Jaws is great.
Clearly Stanley was an early advocate of replicant rights.
This is still the "top comment" for MY Money 🤣🤣🤣
He must have meant the question of whether or not DECKARD was a rep. It's explicitly stated that Rachael is a rep within minutes of her introduction
if Deckard was a replicant, he would not have been able to live past 4 years to put in his 20 years in the police force in order to retire (with a pension retire, lol). Ignoring the fact that replicants are retired on sight, on Earth. Philip K. Dick wrote the book explicitly explaining Deckard is human, so it's no surprise that he's clearly human in the movie as well, despite Ridley Scott's desperate attempts to portray him as a replicant. Alternate ending #2 includes one of those failed attempts; with Rachel saying "we were made for each other". But it was so out of character and fake, it was too artificial even for a replicant, and that ending was never used.
@@tryscienceobviously no one is suggesting that Deckard in the novel is a replicant/android or could be reasonably interpreted as such. But Svott made a movie only using the setting and trappings of the book; I suspect entertaining the creation themes he later revisited in "Prometheus", creating more of a retelling of Frankenstein (itself a retelling of Milton's "Paradise Lost") - the responsibility of a creator of sentience etc.
In THE FILM-
I think the idea Scott has (from here on everything mentioned is entertaining Scott's interpretation) is that Deckard is a replicant "plant"- all his memories of being on the police force/city bladerunner are implants, the conversation he has with his boss is his FIRST conversation with him EVER- he was a rep designed especially to hunt down Batty et al. Thus Deckard only has *memories* of people- in the movie we don't meet one single person from his life (though he does have a conversation with the first replicant interrogator we see [Holden?] in outtakes but he could be aware of Deckard's status if we take both the outtake and Scott's proposition seriously).
It's not that Scott makes an airtight argument. It's just that in HIS mind that's the story he told. To be fair to your point, Ford is appalled at the idea.
@@Mister_W.T.F I'll respectfully disagree - The whole reason that Police Chief Bryant brought Deckard out of retirement, is because Bryant knows Deckard is an especially effective Blade Runner. Besides, it's the unpredictability of replicants, which caused them to be banned on Earth in the first place.
In Deckard, Bryant has a trusted and reliable ally, not at all an unpredictable replicant masquerading illegally as a blade runner.
@@Mister_W.T.F The fact that Ridley Scott worked to make Deckard a replicant, obviously is Scott's preference - but the story was crafted by Philip K. Dick to be the opposite. So Scott's effort I compare to dressing up and putting perfume on a pig. He may dress it like a person, it may smell pretty, but it's still a pig. The guts are not human. Or in this case, the guts of the lead character, Deckard, ARE human. And that's what puts more weight behind Deckard's observations that the replicants were just trying to be more like us. If "us" are replicants, meaning Deckard is a replicant, the argument makes no sense.
@@tryscience I think I've allowed myself to be misunderstood. If one takes the line that Deckard ISN'T a replicant, what you say absolutely holds the line.
If one entertains Scott's PROPOSITION - both Rachael AND Deckard are a new line of Replicants that are "more human than human". Deckard being brought in to test Rachael is really a test of how welk Deckard's implants are embedded, and "mouse cage" behaviour by Tyrell and the Police Departmen
I *THINK* it's the Nexus 6 line that is particularly unstable in the dialogue but correct me if I'm mistaken.
This isnt a "one interpretation is right, one is wrong" argument. It's adhering to one version over the other, the respective elements we are both detailing lining up in each case.
You kind of get TWO movies for the price of one- the one you're talking about- which is how *i* pretty much prefer to watch it as, and the Scott/replicant Deckard version - which sort of hovers in the background for me as a kind of- alternative reading.
But overall I enjoy it as a mood piece, and a meditation on the sanctity of sentience and the arrogance of humanity to "play God" (where it can) without always giving full thought to the consequence.
In the Scott/Deckard=replicant version, it's even more tragic that both Batty AND Deckard are 100% victims of such. Batty may even KNOW Deckard is a replicant (lots of fun fan theories about the "missing replicant" from Deckard's briefing due to an edit issue that never got resolved in post production) and may, seeing the cruelty of th ed situation- realize that he would be killing his own when he us himself about to die, only their human Slave Masters benefitting.
It would also be important that the replicants have red blood, rather than Scott carrying over the idea of white hydraulic fluid from the android Ash in his previous science fiction film featuring such, "Alien". Scott wanted to preserve uncertainty and if the replicants had had a colour of "blood" that was recognizably artificial then Deckard's own blood would have given itaway. (Though Deckard getting si badly beaten up was a choice Scott made that could have been avoided also of course ).
It doesn't sound like SK understood the basic plot. It mattered whether they were replicants because they were built to be servants so we could forget about them and treat them like dirt. It was only when they became homicidal that they began intruding on purely human territory and we had to "care" about them. That could not be tolerated.
Slavery is built on a distinction, albeit superficial. If this distinction didn't exist, there would be no "justification" for slavery. If you want something to be treated as dirt, why make it indistinguishable from your own?
The reason it was important to be able to tell who was human and who wasn't, was that the replicants had become a direct threat to humans. It's like saying there was no need to know who was incubating a Xenomorph in Alien, and they should have just all gotten along on the ship forever in peace and harmony. You needed to know for a very specific reason...
@@caeserromero3013 Maybe the novel gives a backstory, but these things aren't (fully) explained in the film, as I remember.
If they are a threat, why are they still being used and manufactured? Why not make them blue and, more important, stop making them self-aware.
Based on my understanding, the society in Blade Runner makes Nazi Germany look like heaven on earth. The society in Blade Runner is a society of literal monsters, and I use literal literally correct.
Its weird that Kubrick wouldn't get a movie. Maybe he was trolling a bit? And then of course theres his (arguably awkwardly posthumously realized by Spielberg)
"A.I." film which strays into the same territory...
I don't remember it ever being a question about who was a replicant or not. The *audience* might wonder if Deckard is one, but the film is clear about who else is a Replicant.
I honestly have no idea what this woman, and therefore by extension Kubrick, was referring to.
Kubrick obviously wasn't paying any attention to Blade Runner because if had paid attention he'd know that Rachel is revealed to be a Replicant by Tyrell in the very first act of the film. The rest of the film is not trying to determine whether or not she's real, it's whether or not her emotions are real regardless of her being a Replicant. He also seemed to have missed the part where it was explained that Rachel was given false memories that belonged to Tyrell's niece, leading Rachel to question whether or not anything she felt, including her love for Deckard, was genuine or just a preprogrammed response, eliminating the possibility of individual choice on her part.
I think he might have said that about the Deckard controversy and been misremembered by this interviewee?
@@Mister_W.T.F The question of whether or not Deckard was a replicant was not in the original theatrical version. That was added into the director's cut with the unicorn dream.
@@44excalibur that's a very good point - but its not as simple as "Deckard = Rep" began only after directors cut (or whatever its called)- the question of Deckards nature was being discussed by fans long before then , AND- I definitely recall being thrown (on multiple watches) by a "lit iris" moment for Fords eyes, when they have the bright circle as we saw with the Owl (and I think Rachael also-) its brief, but it's there. I agree that the tin foil unicorn model left Gaff is much less meaningful without the unicorn sequence- but it was heavily implied it was apropos of *SOMETHING*. And the fact there were two (correct me I'm wrong) and they were fashioned out of tin foil - (again correct me if I misremember) metal figures was at least an eerie indication that Gaff knew something of Deckards nature he might himself not know. We certainly know it's been Scott's intention that Deckard is a replicant from at least shooting onward, and I think what we have are multiple "leaks" into the film of this- even without the unicorn footage in place
(I've always hated the unicorn bit- I don't know why. It doesnt fit at all for me. I wish he'd found another way to let us know that Gaff knew his internal thoughts/dreams and therefore nature without splicing an aesthetically aberrant (in my opinion) sequence into a film that's got a very strong visual identity.)
I take your point though. But it was out there before, trust me
@@Mister_W.T.F But Deckard wasn't a replicant in the original book by Philip K. Dick, so I never really saw that as much of an issue until the director's cut came out.
@@44excalibur I *KNOW*, right? I felt the Saaaaame!!! The first time I heard the theory I was kind of offended by it- because I originally thought the bueaty of the movie (again contradicting the book though) was that Deckard overcame his prejudice towards replicants- and the movie made a meaningful case for both Humans being more accepting of anything sentient, as well as a modern retelling of the "creation responsibility" story of Paradise Lost/ Frankenstein.
So I FEEL you, man- but Scott has gone on the record since. However, so has Ford, who disagrees and did NOT play Deckard as a replicant. The sequel very skillfully evades committing completely I noticed!
Re the novel- there IS that bit when another Bladerunner from the completely replicant populated side of town realizes HE is a replicant- and I SUSPECT that is where Scott closed on that idea. For one thing that entire subplot is MISSING from the movie- arguably making Deckard a fusion of both those characters if we take Scott at his word.
I think the book definitely sets out Deckard as human, still married, morally frail, insecure and status orientated. While the Deckard in the film has no more EVIDENCE of his marriage or his previous life, or rat race concerns than Rachael.
I'm not saying its RIGHT, or fidelitous to the novel or Dicks intentions, but I suspect it's the film we got... 😁🙏👊
I dont know if its just the way shes explaining her memory of what Kubrick said, but the movie doesn't really spend that much of the film trying to figure out if any of the replicates are replicants, thats basically only one scene in the film that maybe spans 5 mins. Her character is in denial the reset of the film but we all know what she is...
nice of him to lend footage to it...
Ooooh I FORGOT about thatttt....
Not only is there no difference between the character of that of the replicants and those of the humans - the human beings, in contrast to their replicant counterparts, actually have a lot less humanity and character in them than the replicants do. The initial interview scene shows a replicant becoming frustrated with the boredom and absurdity of a silly psychological questionnaire is exactly the same way that an actual human being would lose their patience during a quiz and there is a tension which appears more to be implying an educational and social difference and gap rather than an inherent, ontological difference.
The replicant represented through his impatience during the test a certain rough-neck, recalcitrant contempt for bureaucratic over-reach into personal life by the technocrat; ''Let me tell you about my mother!''
Which by being more rough around the edges, more sloppy and out of place in the interview, makes him seem to be an actual human being moreso than his interviewer.
Harrison Ford also doesn't have nearly as much development of character as his nemesis, who actually reaches a conclusive state of catharsis by the end.
No, there is nothing inherently special about Blade Runner's notion of artificial intelligence and the difference between a replicant and human has no philosophical interest - rather what is of philosophic interest in the script, is Blade Runner not as a science fiction but as a film noir. What makes Blade Runner a great classic, is not that Replicants represent the inhuman in comparison to the human, but that Replicants, like in classic Film Noir, are figures of humanity that exist on the fringes of the urban wastes of a modern, alienated society.
In Film Noir the hero is as morally ambiguous, blurring the distinction with the villain, the Android woman in Blade Runner, is a re-dressed up version of the Femme Fatale.
My theory about blade runner is that EVERYBODY was a replicant. They simply had made up the replicant theory as a means of control. As that cop says "she won't live.....but then....who does?"
interesting theory, although I think that line hits harder for me as a mere reference to our own mortality. as in, is there any difference? We too are only here for such a short time
@@knurdyob But then he would have SAID 'who does....forever'. But yeah, its just a theory:) But in the film the director has said point blank that Decker is also a replicant. Given AI, the genius of the three 'makers' who end up dead would likely be replicants, leaving the humans to be 'the little people'.
But like I said, its just a theory:)
Wow this little bit of insight about Kubrick actually made me lose a bit of respect for him. Bladerunner wasn't about "figuring out which character was a Replicant or not" as much as it was about things like what it meant to be human or whether emotions are real even if they're based on implants. If Kubrick really didn't get that core part of the story then I feel sorry for him.
But that was kind of the whole point of the film. Wasn't it? That it actually didn't matter.
"Itz tu baddd she wh'ownt live... bud then- hoo does?"
(Pause)
"
The point of the novel is that Dechert has lost his humanity by becoming a professional killer without a conscience. The fact that the Replicants are indistinguishable from regular humans is ironic.
Click bait. If Kubrick did say that, I can only assume it was out of ignorance or jealousy. Or something in between.
He probably saw a lot of wasted potential in it, was annoyed he wasn't approached
Normally I would bash on those who dare to criticize the 2d best sci-fi film of all time, but I’ll give him a pass simply because he directed the best sci-fi film of all time.
WOW! Crazy I'm just hearing about this. Thank you!
Huh? Rachel is an experimental Nexus-7 replicant created by Eldon Tyrell (Joe Turkel). This is stated early on in the film and is in no way made ambiguous. Is this lady thinking of the right movie?
made me confused as well
Kubrick's criticism is more about the relationship between humans and androids, probably a problem he also had with Dick's original story. For Kubrick, since replicants are 'equal' to humans, it does not matter to ask the question whether they are artificial or not. I suppose he would have appreciated BR 2049 more.
And anyway, 'this lady' spent almost a year talking daily with Kubrick about what it might mean to be an android.
Sounds like he totally got what the movie was saying, but didn't realize that that they were making him feel this on purpose; his complaint is the very point of the film.
I always wondered why the lengthy psychological tests when all they needed was a simple blood draw or metal detector to determine if their a replicant or a cylon or whatever
Maybe he really hated it cause it used his helicopter shots from The Shining in a way he didn't like.
Blade runner was really meandering though. Like ridley Scott thought he was going to make a masterpiece just because he was impressed by the comics of moebius. He needed a better screenwriter and editor for blade runner. Technically it's very polished and has standout music, but no real plot and no editing. Ridley doesn't have the skill to stretch out a thin plot. I never really felt the need to rewatch it and that was pretty much how I felt the first time. Like why does it matter so much. Now br2049 was much better in that regard. Feels like K actually does detective work instead of meandering nonsense. The only part that was terrible was the Harrison Ford part. That guy never puts any effort into any of his characters. He's just there like an expensive mantle piece.
... and I've a problem with the sequel '2049 : showing an older HFord, which destroys any doubt about his identity in the first opus ...
Ridley Scott himself said in an interview that he was a replicant, but Ridley Scott also originally didn't even think of that idea and then went heavy in on it in his later versions after the theory became popular.
If he was a replicant, there's lots that makes no sense, and it would be a bit stupid. I think the right choice was made with the sequel.
Well, wouldn't replicants, without a life span limit, get old ?
@@comment15 Yep,... I love ambiguity so much ...
I truly wish that Kubrick had stuck with A. I. and set aside Eyes Wide Shut. Although Spielberg swears that he was faithful to Stanley's vision I find this hard to believe and it is clearly a product of Spielberg 's brand of sentimentalized manipulative schmaltz. Anyone familiar with Kubrick knows that the script he has prepared as he goes into production is just a framework and it can change whenever the director is inspired. In Full Metal Jacket he had no clear idea what he wanted as an ending and was periodically prodding the actors for their input. A. I. would have been completely different from what was eventually released. But in a way it does connect with Blade Runner and Roy Batty's search to extend his limited lifespan, just as David wanted the Blue Fairy to turn him into a real boy. Both are predestined to fail in their respective objectives, although Batty's assessment of his experiences are much more memorable.
Spielberg added two scenes. The spinach eating at the dinner table, and pool scene. Everything else is almost to the word the screen story Ian Watson wrote for Stanley in 1990/91.
A.I. is more cold than it is sentimental. At the end, literally cold.
That coldness is reminiscent of Kubrick. Spielberg was faithful to the style
Maybe Kubrick was Replicant himself
Well to be fair I adore both him and the film 😄
Vojo,zaprati me.
@@evestorm7593 done...sad daj neki content 😄
Evo stize.
Me here scratching my head as I remember that every viewer of that movie finds out she's a replicant within minutes of her appearing in the movie based in a world where replicants are deemed less than secondary citizens
It matters to Deckard because Replicants only lived for four years. If Rachel was one, he could not have a real relationship with her long term.
This confirms that Stanley was human too. And commited mistakes. Not every movie should be Kubrickean.
I love his movies. As any sane Cinema fan but Ridley Scott is also one of the greatest.
Thank God we have Stanley and Ridley.
Kubrick and Blade Runner both amazing!! 😁🔥🔥🤟
I want to know what Stanley Kubrick thought of Police Academy
Who gives a fuck about Kubrik?
Who is this woman in the video clip How does she know that Kubrick felt that way Besides that it's an it's an interesting Proposition if you will of weather people are real or not Because if you think about it most people are not real they're simply prepared faces to meet the prepared faces that they meet as TS Eliot So wonderfully put
the film isnt about if Sean Young is a replicant, its about if Deckard himself is replicant or human. Its about a sense of identity and dreams and of course what it means to be alive or sentient.
it's not about that either.
Somehow being a Kubrick fan, I cannot believe that he did not enjoy Blade Runner.
Yeah she's exaggerating for sure, I think he just saw wasted potential
Seems he missed the whole point of the movie in my eyes. That it shouldn't matter at all. I saw Blade Runner as a ten year old in 1985, it had such a profound impact on me even then that I had to watch it all over again straight after. I think it was part of the reason I became an atheist at quite a young age, for the very reason mentioned, how can there be a soul in this complex machine.
This was my exact problem with The Creator. Other than having a big hole in the side of their heads, the robots in that film did everything that a human does, to the point where it was irrelevant that they were robots at all
Stanley was jealous.
We will never know what Stanley Kubrick thought of Blade Runner or any other thing unless there is filmed, recorded or written documentation by him alone.
We do know that human memory is creative. That means that with time memory changes facts and fill blank spaces with inventions of its own.
Why do people in this comment section think that what she's saying is verbatim for what Stanley Kubrick actually said? Blade Runner came out in 1982 so he probably made the remarks around then because Stanley Kubrick died 25 years ago in 1999. We pretty much have to take what she's saying when speaking on behalf of Stanley Kubrick with a bit of skepticism and not the exact words said by Stanley Kubrick, since I would believe Stanley Kubrick would have understood the movie better than her since she's making so many mistakes about what occurred in the movie.
Sara Maitland spent almost a year talking daily with Kubrick about what it might mean to be an android. The interview was conducted in 2000.
@@stanleyandus - If that's true it's still strange what she gets wrong about Blade Runner. I get that they probably spoke quite a bit about AI since Stanley Kubrick wanted to make the movie Artificial Intelligence which Steven Spielberg ended up making.
it mattered..... because one day we might get to the point, where technology will get so good, that we won't be able to tell the difference between actual human and a replicant...... it may not have mattered specifically for the movie, but as a general idea for the society, it surely did
For Kubrick there was no difference.
Well that was sorta the point. If you cant tell the difference, is there one? Are the fact that humans are treating replicants as slaves just because they are artificial actually a justifiable reason or just a something people tell themselves so they don't have to feel bad?
I love prime Ridley, but Kubrick would have done it better. He would have explored the world further, given us more sets and explored Deckard more than the Replicants
Kubrick would have seen the awful initial release rather than the version we all know now.
No, Kubrick is wrong regardless. Rachel is revealed to be a Replicant within the first 15 minutes of the movie when Tyrell explains what she is to Deckard. Kubrick doesn't know what he's talking about.
I saw a pre-screening of Bladerunner on the studio lot before the studio mucked with it and it was wonderful.
which version is the version we all know now?
@@plasticweapon Indeed.
This is hard to believe, frankly, Kubrick had great insight, so I’m surprised he was annoyed by the question of Rachel being real or not. That’s the point, isn’t it? does ‘real’ matter? What is real anyway? What does it mean to ‘live’? Deckard's job is getting harder because the replicants have become indistinguishable from humans. Historically, dehumanising people is the route to removing their rights, likening them to animals or objects opens the door to their elimination. In addition Kubrick’s own footage is used in Bladerunner, he leant it to Scott, so it’s likely he would have been a bit more aware than most of what was driving it.
Sounds like he was on the sauce.
It's a movie about an entire society that believes they are human, and yet none of them are. They are all replicants. And they don't know. That's what Stanley was missing.
Kubrick probably considered intelligence more important than emotion or conscience
Bladerunner is a great visual-audio experience, but the story and script is flawed in so many ways. It diesnt surprise me that Kubrick would have not liked it.
It matters if we perceive reality correctly or if we are being systematically, intentionally deceived. Kubrick was wrong.
Big fan of Kubrick but disagree with him on that but he has a good point though.
No, he doesn't. Rachel is revealed to be a replicant right after her character is introduced. It didn't take more than half of the movie to figure that out.
fair enough@@44excalibur
this explains why Ridley Scott always sounds so salty about some of Kubrick's films like The Shining, interesting. personally I think Kubrick is wrong here about Blade Runner, but so is Ridley Scott regarding The Shining
Kubrick might have liked Blade Runner 2049.
K asks Deckard about his dog, "Is it real?"
"I don't know. Ask him."
i.e. it makes no difference.
It's revealed in the first 15 minutes that she is indeed a replicant.
Calm down dear.
Kubrick must had went for popcorns during 21st minute of movie. 😂
As much as Kubrick is admired, he missed the entire point. It shouldn’t matter that she’s a replicant, but it matters to the characters in the film.
So, Kubrick hated Blade Runner because it shouldn't matter if Rarchel is a replicant or not. That's the whole fucking point of both the movie and the source material, Phillip K. Dick's Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep. One of the recurring themes of many of Dick's works was the question of personal morality vs. the societal construct of morality, particularly when they conflicted.
Stanley was very cerebral, Blade Runner is a film of affection!
Makes perfect sense except... Rachel was told she was a replicant, before the film was 30 percent finished. Deckard realized Rachel was a replicant, 19 percent into the film. Since when is 30 percent greater than 70 percent? Maybe Kubrick didn't hate the film nearly as much as the lady suggests, because her whole premise why he hated the film, is demonstrably false.
the movie is about deckhard's job, thats why it always mattered. and that also was needed because TWIST. i'm not going to spoil it if you for some reason are here but have not seen blade runner. and finally -- kubrick made a much bigger mistake giving AI over to spielberg before he died. good grief did that drag on and on for nothing.
All the movie is about that difference and that replicants have more humans feelings that the real humans.....
One reason it mattered is because replicants had implanted memories that never actually happened.
Of course it didn’t matter to Kubrick, because he’d be in a white robe playing chess with his fake owl. Look at the way he treats his actors. He’d cast Replicants all day. They’re built for 80 takes. I mean, in the end, he WOULD get thumbs through his eyes, but up until then, he’d think everything was fine.
I'm not saying she's wrong, but something's off in the account here. More than half of the film isn't spent on finding out whether Sean Young is a replicant - it is stated in her first scene, early on in the movie, that she is. So either Maitland or Kubrick remembers it wrong.
Dunno, Kubrick was know for making shorthand quips; I don’t think he was making a formal review. He famously remarked to Spielberg that he had a movie about the Holocaust about the people who lived (and not the millions who had died).
Anyways, he was a film maker not s reviewer so was probably making off the cuff remarks.
@@jeehoonlee5150 But what he said about Schindler's List is true, or at least a valid opinon. The plot of Blade Runner simply isn't what is stated here. Like I said, he could have just remembered it wrong.
I guess he didn't get that replicants were made to work as slaves on Elon's Mars colony with limited life span to never create a substantial revolution and one of them happens to be the love interest of Deckard
Stanley was just bitter he didn't get the opportunity to add his own twist on that Philip K Dick book.
Maybe Kubrick had issues with the plot , but actual hated for Blade Runner? Hard to believe as he was a a fan of Ridley Scott's work.
And yet the difference between how 'natural' people and artificial people are treated is the main premise of AI. So it sounds like Stanley's dislike of Bladerunner could be chalked up to competitive jealousy.
No, but he considered that the topic should be treated differently.
Why am I not surprised? Kurbrick in his work barely exhibited anything remotely resembling humanity.
On the contrary, I believe that Kubrick in his films showed better than anyone else what humanity is.
I agree, @44excalibur, that Kubrick's outlook thoughout his films is generally misanthropic.
@@stanleyandus Kubrick was always a cold technician with his films. He always preferred the visual image to dialogue, narrative, and character.
you don't actually watch his films, do you?
imagine what he think about blade runner 2049... he would just hit the person who ask him repeatedly till the person is no more
He would have liked it more
unless we had kubricks statement on this, i dont think we can ascertain what exactly he meant from others accounts, maybe from his point of view, they were just machines since the unicorn dream sequence wasnt originally present in the film if im not mistaken, i dont know
On the contrary, for him they were perfectly 'human'. If you want to know more about Kubrick's thinking on androids and artificial intelligence in general, I invite you to watch the first episode of our series on Vimeo (vimeo.com/ondemand/stanleyandus).
@@stanleyandus thanks
*i* have Kubricks statement on this, but its obscured by some crap about filming some "moon landing" or something....
Wait, I don't think Blade Runner had a point. It was about a guy hunting robots and almost getting killed again and again. Much like many of Kubrick's movies, it comes across as mostly hollow and earns its reputation on technical achievement.
What's it matter is a hilarious statement, it matters because replicant's up to that point had a history of becoming homicidal.
Well obviously he wasn't paying close enough attention. Difference in Empathy.
Well, Stanley's ideas for AI were quite cynical toward cyborgs, robots and...replicants.
cynical?
@@stanleyandus his intentions was AI were cynical. Hayley Joel Osment part for example, he wanted him to show that no matter how human he looked, he still wouldn't be a human. Which is kinda how I see Kubrick personal belief on je mankind.
I'm not really sure we can confidently accept this aggressive, decades-after-the-fact testimony on face value. It seems somehow "off," exaggerated, and misremembered. 🤔
It makes me leery of the reality that, from now on, we're going to be hearing from people whose memories may get more detailed and baroque as time passes.
Best wishes from Vermont ❄️
This is an excerpt from a long interview that Sara Maitland gave us in 2000.
Because he was angry he didn't make it himself?
Well that's the fucking point Stanley
I’ve never been a big fan of Blade Runner. Its storyline is too basic for me. It has great set design and an interesting twist at the end but it’s by-the-numbers.
sooo he was a hatin' as n word ...basically. cos we all loved that shit more than 2001 psycho HAL in 2001 a space oddity
I thought the whole message of the film, of the franchise was 'It shouldn't matter', it's like a pro AI rights message.
Half the movie we learn within first 25 min
There's no difference between the virtual videos of the things people say and the video salads served up by AI.
Even geniuses have moments of stupidity. That and Kubrick had a big ego.
Neat
I couldn't stand it for several other reasons.
I wonder what changes would have Stanley "suggested"
He probably would have avoided all that part about androids and "artificial intelligence" as a danger to mankind. I think he considered Blade Runner to be too closely linked to the Frankenstein myth, which he disliked. Certainly this would have impacted on much of the story of Blade Runner, but Kubrick saw artificial intelligence as a legacy of humanity, perhaps the only thing that will remain of our civilisation, as seen in 'A.I artificial intelligence'. We devoted the first episode of our series to 'A.I. Artificial intelligence' (The Pinocchio project), in which Kubrick's thoughts on A.I. are more elaborate.
And here I thought Kubrick was a genius.
I hope that's not true. Ridley Scott was ight.
I don't get it.
That lady got quite worked up here
Kubrick was such a proficient plagiarist, that no one has ever noticed; except me, of course.
What a f
He hated it because he didn't direct it (grin). Jealousy is the most sincere of compliments.
I think she misrenembers the conversation.😅😅😅😅😅😅😅
The way I'd always interpreted the plot was that the real secret was that Rachael was Deckard's unicorn: her span was not limited to four years. Being a prototype, her genetic engineering far exceeded that of other Replicants. The scientific team had unwittingly engineered a human being through synthetic means. Rachael was protected and honored as a daughter. The movie was not about Rachael finding out she's a replicant but about she and Deckard discovering she is actually human and what they would do with that revelation. The other replicants sensed they were on the threshold, but they knew they fell short. More than anything else, they wanted to be human. Only Rachael was blessed with the prize. Deckard claimed it. He found his unicorn.
Lol wut? Kind of a stupid criticism, demanding that every element of a sci-fi society be logical. Of course people obsess on identity. Always have. Distinguishing between humans and replicants would be a visceral issue to most people.
Yeah, and that’s the point of the film. It doesn’t actually matter. Deckard himself is a replicant as we find out at the end.
I hate Stanley Kubrick
He got the plot wrong! :D :D
Oh Stanley…a wee bit jealous perhaps. 😄
It’s Ridley Scott movie. His movies rarely make sense on psychological level. It’s all about thrills and visuals.