*coughJohnnyMnemoniccough*

What a stoopid movie. I loved the original story and the movie was...not it. It was a stoopid action movie with borrowed names from the story.

And yes, I know that Gibson was in on the screenplay and may have even written it. Doesn't change the fact that it was not the story.

Also saw a neat version of "New Rose Hotel" with Christopher Walken and Willem Dafoe which was really true to the source material and great...until the end, where they reiterate the "scam", like, ten times. It was like "We GET it, they were double-crossed!" (hopefully won't have to whitefont that...it's a Gibson story after all).

Worse than the fourteen endings to "The Lord of The Ring: The Return of The King."

In re: DADoES: From the book I never got the feeling that Deckard was a replicant...in fact, I got the exact opposite feeling, that he was human. (See the end of the book with his wife Iran). The point of the book was questioning what defines human v. non-human, but I think the point was emphasized and made more poignant by Deckard being human but still unable to answer the question.

If the first two Star Wars movies, American Graffiti, and Raiders only get you to n00b, there's not much hope out there for a lot of actors. And that's before you get to the 20-odd other entries on his cv. I think he was grown up enough for the director to tell the truth to. Not that that would stop the misdirection--just that Ford being a tyro doesn't strike me as a likely reason.

I can see Scott telling Ford that Deckard was NOT a replicant out of some sort of directorial-fuck-with-the-actor's-head-to-get-the-performance-I-want madness.

But I agree with ita...I don't think Ford qualified as a n00b even back then.

It wouldn't have been the first time a director had messed with an actor's mind. Charlton Heston and Ben Hur come to mind.

And while it might be argued that Ford hadn't proved he could carry a movie when Blade Runner was filmed, he was well beyond newbie stage by then. (Note: According to IMDb, BR started filming about 3 months before Raiders opened.)

He hadn't had to really carry a movie before, not even Star Wars or American Graffiti.

I think this statement is a symptom of accidentally overlooking Force 10 from Navarone.

Trust American Movie Classics to find that movie the movie star made just before stardom struck, that sucked then and sucks now, but is kind of elevated just by dint of being the a movie made before the crunchy shell of stardom had hardened. All the movies Ben Affleck made before he got his teeth done count (especially if he played an asshole), and... I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head. Maybe Russell Crowe's first American movie, in which he played a psychotic escapee video game.

And wore a snazzy purple suit. That's a fun movie.

To this day, I'm puzzled why they called it Force 10 from Navarone when they killed off six of the commandos five minutes into the film.

The point of the book was questioning what defines human v. non-human, but I think the point was emphasized and made more poignant by Deckard being human but still unable to answer the question.

I think you're right on the point, but I think it was better served in the story with the ambiguity over whether Deckard was human or not. I mean, I don't think he was meant to be definitely one or the other. But I'll grant you that it's been a long while since I read it.

Maybe Russell Crowe's first American movie, in which he played a psychotic escapee video game.

VIRTUOSITY!

Which he followed up with THE QUICK AND THE DEAD.

VIRTUOISTY is one those movies I really like that I can't justify as remotely good. Denzel did a few of those (RICOCHET comes to mind). But who doesn't love Denzel.

Denzel was in Virtuosity ! I'm with you Frank it's not a good movie but I like it.