Badmovies.org Forum

Interesting comments along with their choices. After you view the list, you can hit Home at the top, they have several articles dedicated to Sciende Fiction.

10 Best (http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1290561,00.html)



Post Edited (08-27-04 07:30)

These scientists know what a good movie is.

I'm with The Bouncer.  This list is spot on.  

Good to finally know that Ridley Scott says that Deckard is a replicant.  That has been quite a issue between myself and a friend.

Of the dozen films listed, I've seen five of them. The one I'm most glad to see on the list is George Pal's "War of the Worlds," as I think is films are often overlooked by today's audiences.

And, as the "Guardian" is a British paper, I preume most of those 60 scientists polled were British. One wonders if 60 American scientists were polled as to the 10 best scifi films, whether their 10 would be the same.

I have seen all but "Solaris" .  You know, maybe I am dim, but I don't really "get" the Decker as replicant idea.  It seems to be reaidng too much into the story to me.  
-Ed

The list seems pretty good, though I haven't seen Solaris or Matrix (only Matrix II, meh).

I kind of assumed that Decker was a replicant, it gives a nice twist to the story.

What's funny is the aside about the bored sounding narration.  I guess they missed the story that Harrison Ford deliberately screwed with the narration, to get it out of the film.  That seemed to sail right over the heads of the studio execs.

It makes perfect sense that Deckard was a replicant.

A. He is completely cold and souless.  Sure we find that he loves Sean Young's character, but he never really shows any emotion throughout.

B. The unicorn sequence is the main key to the fact that he is a replicant.  If you follow the film, you find that all replicants have memories implanted into his brain.  Now think about the unicorn sequence.  What if it is not a dream but actually a memory.  Unicorns are mystical characters and obviously do not exist.  Therefore, the memory would have to be something fake; something fabricated.  The fact that he has these memories is pure proof that he is a replicant just like the creatures that he hunts down every day.  Makes the story much much better.  

Ok.  I've gone way too dork tonight.  That's enough.

The fact that THE MATRIX is on this list is pretty disturbing.  Especially when you consider that PLANET OF THE APES, FORBIDDEN PLANET and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS were omitted.

The Burgomaster wrote:

> The fact that THE MATRIX is on this list is pretty disturbing.
> Especially when you consider that PLANET OF THE APES, FORBIDDEN
> PLANET and INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS were omitted.
>

Scientists don't get out much. They're too busy with their beekers

Not too suprising.  "Planet of The Apes" and "Invasion..." at least were more social commentary than projecting forward from technology, etc..

Not completely consistant, as Star Wars and War Of The Worlds don't fit the same pattern

I was surprised that "Quatermass and the Pit/Five Million Years to Earth" didn't make the list. Great movie anyway, plus the scientists are the heroes and actually investigate and use their minds to figure out how to save the day. Very "British" British movie as well.

The "Deckard as possible replicant" theme is much stronger in the book, especially during the replicant police station scene. I know the movie changed or dropped lots from the book, but having it be uncertain just WHAT Deckard is, if anything he is feeling is real, if his memories are planted, and if he's just being used to dispose of his own kind, is just the kind of mindf**k PKD put in his work. Personally I was glad the director's cut brought this out more, whether Deckard is replicant or human. And I love the ending that left things more up in the air.

I'm surprised "Solaris" made the list, at least it was the Russian version. Neither version is perfect, but I like it better.

See, I still am not positive.  In the book, Deckard had animal-based hallucinations all the time.  I thought the unicorn sequence was an attmpt to tie that in.  But maybe the book also thought he was one,  but what do I know?  I like the movie nonetheless.
-Ed

Plus the book was more clear about animals being rare due to the environmental  damage to the planet, hence subplot about the social status that came with being able to afford and care for a pet, as well as the market for "fake animals" for people still wanted the status animal ownership conveyed but couldn't afford a real one or didn't want the upkeep on such a valuable investment.

I've had to explain to people who haven't read the book about the significance of the "kill jar" question on the psychological test and the Joanna Cassidy's character's fake snake since the movie is vague regarding the animals issue.

Like I kind of said earlier I like that the film raises the question whether Deckard is human or replicant. IMO, keeping the answer vague or unanswered works best. I was little disappointed when Scott first let be known publicly that Deckard was supposed to be a replicant. Playing coy would seem to work better, but since people are still debating this (including us) I guess it makes no difference.

Since there's so much genetic engineering going on, how could the viewer be expected to suspect that a unicorn in a flashback was the mythological kind instead of a real one? I'm not sure if I've ever seen any version of the movie where there were any unicorns other than the origami one. Didn't read the book either, but I gather that the androids etc in it are mechanical instead of bioengineered? And is a lot of it about the religion of Mercerism, or am I thinking of something else?

The Director's cut of "Blade Runner" the one that first removed the narration and the tacked-on happy ending, added the unicorn scene, which is very brief, no more than a few seconds long. I bought it on VHS years ago, I haven't seen which versions make the rounds on TV lately, so I don't know if it's there.

Been so long since I read the book, I'm vague on the particulars besides what I've mentioned so far.

Count me as one of the ones who never noticed any implications that Deckard was a replicant. The things suggesting he might be one are incredibly circumstantial and there's the fact that replicants are considered to be so dangerous and illegal, there's an entire department of the police force devoted to hunting down and killing them. How would a replicant not only be allowed to join the police, but to carry around a high-powered gun and kill those he believes to be replicants?

I see the circumstancial evidence claim, that's part of why I say the answer is up in the air.

You have to read into things a bit to claim that Deckard was a replicant, seems like. Some claim Deckard was the other member of the group of escaped replicants (the one  reported destroyed) and has been reprogrammed or lied to. The thinking, I guess, is that the replicants are so dangerous that the best one ot hunt them down is another replicant. Also from this line of thinking Deckard may not be a former member of the police, he may just have been reprogrammed to think he was. Deckard's blandness of personality and his confusion at times is supposed to support this, I think. This is all supposed to jibe with the general air of confusion, misdirection, and "your reality isn't what you've been lead to think it is" that is so much a part of PKD's writing. There's a chapter in the book where Deckard is arrested after killing on the replicants, only to find out that the police precinct he's taken to is a fake filled with other escaped replicants hiding in plain sight as police employees. The detective who tells all this to Deckard begins to plant the seed in Deckard's mind that he may be a replicant as well. I've always figured the "reprogrammed replicant" idea was a way of invoking this subplot that was droped for the movie.

It does involve the kind of explaining away things and looking for outside info that goes against the "if it ain't in the film, it ain't there" theory some have. It also reminds me of the kind of explanations that fans of "Signs" had for the holes people like myself who didn't like that film brought up.

Like I said, I prefer the true answer isn't known idea, it's more interesting to me that way, so I'm kind of the wrong person to make and support the "Deckard as replicant" argument wholeheartedly.

You can probably google around and find better explanations and supporting evidence, enough people support the idea that someone must have spelled this out somewhere online. After all, I read a website once filled with seemingly serious essays and evidence claiming that the two halves of the Tyler Durden character in "Fight Club" are really Calvin and Hobbes from the great comic strip all grown up and manifesting as split personalities.

Heh, gonna have to disagree about Tyler/Jack from Fight Club being Calvin & Hobbs.  It's pretty much a metaphor for confused sexuality.


As for the version of Blade Runner floating around the airwaves, it's the original version - not the director's cut.  I caught the end of it recently, since I had never seen the original ending.  Awful.  The director's cut is much much better.

Haha, I just remembered that when my friend wanted to see Fight Club I said that it looked like it was going to just be a series of frustrated gay impulses put on film. Then when we saw it, the very first image on the screen is that guy shoving a gun down the other guy's throat. The rest of the movie was just warmed over Marx though.

I just thought the Fight Club/Calvin and Hobbes idea was so loopy that it was funny to see how far the guy went to argue such a pointless claim.

Didn't want to hijack the thread by mentioning it, just wanted to use it as an example of film theories and explanations floating around online. Google :blade runner deckard replicant theory, and see what turns up.

give me the names and biogrphy of fifteen best scientist of all time.