"It's too sad she won't live" - Blade Runner (1982) Discussion

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

The line goes: It's too 'bad' she won't live! But then again, who does?!

Meaning:

She can't live (Rachael must be 'retired' too) but who of us lives anyway?

Why does Gaff say that?

Gaff knows Deckard is a replicant and so he is either a non-human or a 'machine' (in his eyes) and Deckard too must be eliminated. Gaff simply can't refrain himself from taunting Deckard. A third meaning could be: Rachael must die! But dead or living, the world is such a *beep* place, does it even matter?

Alex

reply

[–] little_wing 8 years ago

I believe the meaning of that line "It's too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?", refers to Gaff thinking that Rachel had a limited life span like the others; because after that Deckard says, "Gaff had been there, and let her live. Four years, he figured. He was wrong. Tyrell had told me Rachael was special: no termination date. I didn't know how long we had together … who does"?

Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention.

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

, "Gaff had been there, and let her live. Four years, he figured. He was wrong. Tyrell had told me Rachael was special: no termination date. I didn't know how long we had together … who does"?

You have to consider that Gaff's line already existed before the text of the added voiceover and that it also exists in the DC or the FC. What does it mean there?

reply

[–] little_wing 8 years ago

Same thing.

Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention.

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

If Gaff refers to the 4-year-life span of replicants, then why does he say "who does"? Also, Gaff throws Deckard's gun to him right before he says "Too bad she won't live". Is the act of throwing that gun and the line "Too bad she won't live" unrelated to one another? If Rachael is not in danger, why do they flee the city? To be honest, this tells me Gaff is insinuating that Rachael must be retired.

reply

[–] little_wing 8 years ago

If Gaff refers to the 4-year-life span of replicants, then why does he say "who does"?

The "who does?" is rhetorical.

Is the act of throwing that gun and the line "Too bad she won't live" unrelated to one another?

Gaff threw the gun to Deckard because Deckard lost it in his battle with Roy. It's Deckard's gun. What else would Gaff do with it?

If Rachael is not in danger, why do they flee the city?

Who said Rachel wasn't in danger. Of course she's in danger, as is Deckard, now; replicants are illegal on earth. But the two things aren't mutually exclisive.

To be honest, this tells me Gaff is insinuating that Rachael must be retired.

If that was the case why didn't he just retire her? And Deckard too, while he was at it? Come to think of it, he could have shot them with Deckard's gun.

Reaction time is a factor in this, so please pay attention.

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Squeeth2 8 years ago

~~~~~She can't live (Rachael must be 'retired' too) but who of us lives anyway?~~~~~

No, she can't live because no-one can.

Marlon, Claudia & Dimby the cats 1989-2010. Clio the cat, July 1997 - 1 May 2016.

reply

[–] little_wing 8 years ago

That's an existential question, Alex; another way I've often looked at that line. Thinking that Gaff is saying "It's too bad she won't live" because referring to someone retiring Rachel is far too simplistic based on the profundity of rest of dialog in the film.

reply

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

The line by Gaff;

"It's too 'bad' she won't live! But then again, who does?!"

This has a different meaning in the theatrical cut (with the narration by Deckard) and the Director's Cut/Final Cut.

- In the theatrical cut Gaff's comment sets up this narration by Deckard.

Deckard: [narrating] Gaff had been there, and let her live. Four years, he figured. He was wrong. Tyrell had told me Rachael was special. No termination date. I didn't know how long we had together... Who does?

- But in the Director's Cut / Final Cut there is no narration.
So, it can be assumed that Rachel might live to only 4 years.
Or maybe not since Gaff also said "who does?".meaning Rachel might live as long as the rest of us?
The viewer can only guess about how long Rachel will live.

Also in the Director's Cut / Final Cut while Deckard hears those words in his mind, he is holding the unicorn origami.
This tells Deckard that Gaff knows that Deckard was dreaming of a unicorn. And that strongly hints that Deckard's dreams were implanted (which Gaff knows about).
So, Deckard is a replicant.
And how long will he live?

So, the comment "who does?" also applies to Deckard.
He also might live as long as the rest of us.

Imo at least, BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

The viewer can only guess about how long Rachel will live.

Depending on the cut, it's either indefinitely (TC) or at least 4 years (DC/FC). In both cases, both Rachael and Deckard are in danger now. Deckard will not kill Rachael and so somebody else will have to do the job for him. In Future Noir you can see that they had planned for Gaff to pursue the two 'runners' as they are driving through the mountains. Gaff only gave the couple a head start, presumably because he probably wanted to wait and see what Deckard would do.

reply

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

Alex; thanks for posting information from the book "Future Noir". I enjoy thinking about how the writers were considering different ideas for the script.

"In Future Noir you can see that they had planned for Gaff to pursue the two 'runners' as they are driving through the mountains. Gaff only gave the couple a head start, presumably because he probably wanted to wait and see what Deckard would do."

As for the danger to Deckard and Rachel, not knowing how that turned out is one of the unfortunate results of "Blade Runner" not being successful in theaters. Which meant no sequel for a long time.

We'll see if "Blade Runner 2049" mentions what happened.

Imo at least BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

reply

[–] edisonnosidE 8 years ago

We'll see if "Blade Runner 2049" mentions what happened.

Evidently, it could include Rachel (our little lamb or ewe), because the actress is still active.

Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
 +  = 

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

As for the danger to Deckard and Rachel, not knowing how that turned out is one of the unfortunate results of "Blade Runner" not being successful in theaters. Which meant no sequel for a long time.

Gaff flying in his spinner in hot pursuit of the couple was clearly an ending designed with a sequel in mind but it shows that no one thought of Gaff as being the Good Samaritan all of a sudden. The only reason Rachael isn't dead yet is because he waited for Deckard to do the job. In fact, Deckard killing Rachael was also one of possible endings. It goes even further! After he kills Rachael, Deckard returns home and sits behind the piano when suddenly his hands starts to cramp ... Indeed, BB-15, even the original writer of Blade Runner saw Deckard as a possible replicant. Fancher does prefer the glowing eyes approach though ...

Alex

reply

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] kaskait 8 years ago

Gaff has accepted the full humanity of Deckard and Rachel. He saw through the shadow lies and saw them for who they were ...alive and in love.

That is why he let them both live even though he had opportunity to murder both of them.

Deckard believes that Gaff thinks Rachel only has a 4 year life span. But he is wrong. Gaff knows all. Gaff is the Blade Runner, Deckard is merely his cat's paw.

Gaff knows that Deckard is a replicant. Deckard has no termination date aside from the one that Gaff can decide upon.

Gaff's little dig is telling Deckard to live and love to the fullest because no HUMAN knows the day or the hour unlike slaves like Roy.

reply

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

Gaff has accepted the full humanity of Deckard and Rachel. He saw through the shadow lies and saw them for who they were ...alive and in love.

That is why he let them both live even though he had opportunity to murder both of them.

Deckard believes that Gaff thinks Rachel only has a 4 year life span. But he is wrong. Gaff knows all. Gaff is the Blade Runner, Deckard is merely his cat's paw.

Gaff knows that Deckard is a replicant. Deckard has no termination date aside from the one that Gaff can decide upon.

Gaff's little dig is telling Deckard to live and love to the fullest because no HUMAN knows the day or the hour unlike slaves like Roy.

You are being sarcastic, right? 

reply

[–] kaskait 8 years ago

No you are.

This film is about human trafficking hidden behind euphemisms.

Gaff is the Blade Runner of the title. He is the handler for "Replicant" altered human Deckard.

Like Rachel, Deckard has no termination date. Deckard's end is at the discretion of his handlers.

If Gaff had done his duty, his job, he should have killed Rachel when she was hiding in Deckard's apartment. He should have killed Deckard right after Deckard took care of Roy. He did neither. He left them live. They proved to him that they were fully human, that altered DNA did not change their essential nature.

reply