MovieChat Forums > Blade Runner (1982) Discussion > "Solaris" (1972) and "Blade Runner"

"Solaris" (1972) and "Blade Runner"

posted 8 years ago by BB-15
24 replies | jump to latest

I've been thinking about "Solaris" lately and relating it to other films.
And now I'm going to focus on "Solaris" (1972) and "Blade Runner".

1. Replica humans and what does it mean to be human?
I have no evidence for this but it seems possible that "Solaris" influenced the story of "Blade Runner" in certain ways.

** Replica humans; accepted or not?
- Prior to "Solaris", the view of replica humans in dramatized SF was often very negative.
There would be a rare science fiction TV story such as with The Twilight Zone's "The Lonely" (1959) where the replica human was seen in a sympathetic light. But still an actual loving relationship with an artificial human was forbidden so the replica is finally destroyed.
The original Star Trek series came too a similar conclusion in "What Are Little Girls Made Of?" (1966) about artificial human replicas.
- Phillip K. Dick wrote stories about replica humans including; "Imposter" and "Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep".
The replica could be an unknowing lethal spy.
Or the replica could be the product of a large company where their replica androids would try to trick 'real' humans. But the replica was a dehumanized copy who should be shunned.

* The story of "Solaris" on the space station is centered on human replicas who are created by the planet Solaris and how the main character, Kelvin, reacts to them.
The replica for Kelvin is Hari, his dead wife who had committed suicide years ago.
- Kelvin's first reaction to replica Hari fits the previous SF stories; rejection.
He fools Hari in getting into a space capsule and launches her into space to be rid of her.
- This is the Phillip K Dick, Twilight Zone, original Star Trek view. Human replicas are fake, they are to be shunned, they are to be destroyed.

But "Solaris" presents a new twist for this replica idea.
The replica Hari comes back!
The shaken Kelvin now has a breakthrough. He begins to accept her and embraces her through the night.
Slowly Kelvin begins to become emotionally attached to Hari. She is not really his wife but in a way she is. He cares for her. And he calls her his 'wife'.

- "Blade Runner" also makes this leap from the replica being the enemy, being shunned and destroyed to a connection between the protagonist, Deckard and the forbidden replicant, Rachel.
They go a step further where the two end the film together in an elevator. A couple who love each other the best way they can.
- Again, I do not know the specific influence of "Solaris" here. But "Solaris" came first with the theme that the replica can be accepted.

** What does it mean to be a human? Memory is part of that.
A perfect wax replica is not a human.
Unless a person is in a coma, a human reacts to some sensory stimuli.
A human has memory whether in the body or mind, verbal or non verbal.

"Solaris" explores humanity and memory.
Hari believes she is human because she has some memories from Kelvin about his wife (through the power of the Solaris planet).
Then Kelvin gives Hari more memories; from home movies of his family and his wife on earth.

In "Blade Runner" the implanting of memories becomes the way that a replica human can become more human.
But are the memories real or fake? But after a while, what does it matter?

In "Solaris" Hari eventually becomes more comfortable in her role as Kelvin's 'wife'. But the crew member Sartorius resists this acceptance of Hari. She is not human he tells her. (Representing the older SF view of replicas.)
Hari's reaction, she kills herself. She is healed but eventually asks the other two cosmonaut / scientists to destroy her.

In "Blade Runner" at the beginning of their knowing each other Deckard tells Rachel that she is not "human". She's just a replica. Rachel emotionally breaks down and Deckard has a slight awareness. Something is happening to these replicas. They have feelings.
Again, "Solaris" led the way.

2. The overall journey;
* The journey for Kelvin in "Solaris" is one of emotion, wonder and acceptance.
Kelvin began to have feelings for the replica of his dead wife, Hari. While the two other crew members disagreed, Kelvin did not give up on the emotional connection he had for Hari.
- At the end, when Kelvin is at the replica house and kneels before the replica father he is submitting to the godlike power of the planet Solaris.
- Kelvin's journey is of a man in emotional pain of grief who wants to accept that a godlike power can bring back what was taken away by death.
- Emotional evolution can be seen as the key in this progression.

* The journey for Deckard in "Blade Runner" is on a smaller scale and is more contained.
Deckard returns from his battle with Roy, and in a quiet moment he sees Rachel on the bed in his apartment. Is she dead?
She stirs and he has a sigh of relief. Starting as a person who did not care, he is in love.
- The hardened detective Deckard does not slip into signs of worship. He is just relieved that he and Rachel are alive in a very harsh world.

Imo at least, BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

I agree, BB-15. The last time I watched Solyaris, I too was surprised by how Blade Runner seem to have taken some elements from it, like 'memories' and the 'importance (or not) of real'. I know both movies are based on books that preceded both movies but I felt somebody must have seen Tarkovsky's film as well. And it's kind of funny, because Blade Runner, Solyaris and 2001: A Space Odyssey are my favorite science fiction movies.

Alex

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

Hi Alex;

"The last time I watched Solyaris, I too was surprised by how Blade Runner seem to have taken some elements from it, like 'memories' and the 'importance (or not) of real'."

Yes. I saw "Solaris" recently and the similarity to "Blade Runner" with the sympathetic view of the human replica and Kelvin's / Deckard's emotional connection to the replica struck me.
- And since both movies sympathize with the replica, the films delve into how memories are connected to what is considered human in some way.
What is being human about? Both movies ask that question imo.

" I know both movies are based on books that preceded both movies"

There are many discussions on IMDb about how Tarkovsky and Ridley Scott deviated from the source material (the novels) in very important ways.
Both directors brought into sharp focus (as opposed to the books) the relationship between a person and the replica human.
That relationship became an emotional bond for both main characters.
And in the end both main characters want (or at least accept) that emotional bond with replicas.

"but I felt somebody must have seen Tarkovsky's film as well."

That would make sense.

"Blade Runner, Solyaris and 2001: A Space Odyssey are my favorite science fiction movies."

I rate all 3 films high on my all time favorite science fiction list.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

But rather than Blade Runner inspired by Solaris, could it be possible both are inspired by Mary Shelly's Frankenstein? When looking for a source of inspiration, one must look for the root source. This has already been extensively explored in Pedro Javier Pardo Garcia's "From Blade Runner to Solaris Covert Adaptations of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in Contemporary Cinema."

It seems peculiar to analyze a symptom that theoretically spawned another symptom, rather than analyze the cause.

-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

Hi SFM;

"But rather than Blade Runner inspired by Solaris, could it be possible both are inspired by Mary Shelly's Frankenstein? When looking for a source of inspiration, one must look for the root source."

OK, of course you are correct. Every science fiction story about replica humans, or scientists playing God owes something to Shelly's Frankenstein.
Shelly's book is considered by many to be the first science fiction novel. She is one of the creators of the genre.

"This has already been extensively explored in Pedro Javier Pardo Garcia's "From Blade Runner to Solaris Covert Adaptations of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein in Contemporary Cinema."

Thanks for the reference.

"It seems peculiar to analyze a symptom that theoretically spawned another symptom, rather than analyze the cause."

But what is the symptom that I am proposing?
It is an emotional / loving bond between a person and the replica human.
And that is not in the Frankenstein novel.

The "Young Frankenstein" movie has it but that came out two years after "Solaris". And it was a comedy so the idea was a joke.

"Solaris" seriously explores the idea of a bonding (like a marital bond) between person and replica. This kind of connection is fundamental to human civilization. And science fiction prior to "Solaris" was giving the message that these replica humans would not be the one to bring home to mom and dad and say you were getting married. 

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

It is an emotional / loving bond between a person and the replica human.
And that is not in the Frankenstein novel.

But that is only one of many type of Romanticism. And the novel is rich with Romanticism.

To quote Garcia in his book, "It has its roots in Gothic literature but transcends it by introducing certain concerns characteristic of Romanticism and some issue anticipating science fiction......Frankenstein thus takes a double leap from Gothic to Romantic and to science fiction. It couples a Romantic creator, an over-reacher with Faustian and Promethean overtones, transgressing the boundaries set to man, with a creature who has also a Romantic core as both rebellious Satan and alienated Ancient Mariner."

So I suppose yes, these contemporary films changed the setting how Romanticism is portrayed, but it still adhere's to the novel's root theme of Romanticism. Keep in mind Shelley was at the right time and right place - the Romanticism in Science movement was born in western Europe just a few years before she wrote the novel.

-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

to SFM;

"But that is only one of many type of Romanticism. And the novel is rich with Romanticism."

Yes. Frankenstein was influential but that does not mean that every kind of romantic plot was contained in Frankenstein.
What Frankenstein started could be varied with new twists in another story.

"Frankenstein thus takes a double leap from Gothic to Romantic and to science fiction."

I already wrote about that.

Shelly's book is considered by many to be the first science fiction novel.

But just because Shelly's SF book came first, does not mean it contains every possible kind of science fiction.
There is no space travel in Frankenstein for instance. But there is space travel in "Solaris".

"It couples a Romantic creator, an over-reacher with Faustian and Promethean overtones, transgressing the boundaries set to man,"

That idea is not the message of "Solaris". It is using the God concept described by Kubrick about "2001".
There are no boundaries to what the most powerful space aliens imaginable can create.
In "Solaris" and "2001" space aliens can play God.

"with a creature who has also a Romantic core as both rebellious Satan and alienated Ancient Mariner."

"Solaris" and "Blade Runner" turn this on its head.
Hari is not a monster to Kelvin.
And Rachel is not a monster to Deckard.

In Frankenstein "The monster is a Romantic hero because of the rejection he must bear from normal society. Wherever he goes, the monster is chased away because of his hideous appearance and his huge size"

But in "Solaris" Kelvin is the romantic hero. Because he accepts the replica human. Because to him she is not a monster.

"So I suppose yes, these contemporary films changed the setting how Romanticism is portrayed, but it still adhere's to the novel's root theme of Romanticism."

As I wrote;

"Every science fiction story about replica humans, or scientists playing God owes something to Shelly's Frankenstein."

In terms of romanticism Frankenstein is one kind of SF story which has a type of romanticism.
- In Frankenstein the replica is a monster. The replica as monster is very influential in SF.
But to Kelvin and Deckard the replica is not only not a monster but is a potential soulmate, sexual partner. These men in the end do not reject the replica.

"Solaris" came up with something new.
Is it influenced by Frankenstein? Of course, every SF replica story is.
But "Solaris" is still a different take on the replica idea.

Imo at least, BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

"Solaris" and "Blade Runner" turn this on its head.
Hari is not a monster to Kelvin.
And Rachel is not a monster to Deckard.

Exactly! What connects the two movies is what sets them apart from The Monster Of Frankenstein. What struck me was how in both movies 'fake', while troublesome at first, no longer becomes an issue for Kelvin and Deckard. The substitute successfully replaces the human. It is no longer a freak or a monster. Real is not important. What is real anyway?

BTW, the last time I saw Event Horizon (not on my list of favorite sci-fi movies) I noticed it references to Solyaris (and The Shining) as well.

Alex

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

What Frankenstein started could be varied with new twists in another story.

Yes I would agree Blade Runner and Solaris added new twists to the Frankenstein story. Which was my original point. Now you are referencing Frankenstein to discuss the themes or "twists" of Blade Runner and Solaris. Well done.

-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

[–] BB-15 8 years ago



BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] criztu 8 years ago

And now I'm going to focus on "Solaris" (1972) and "Blade Runner".

1. Replica humans and what does it mean to be human?

Stanislaw Lem, the writer of Solaris, has another "sci-fi" novel, called "Golem XIV".

The Golem is a concept in Jewish folklore, about a creature made from mud, from which the truth has been removed, that is, it lives in a corrupted state.

In other words, the Golem is Adam. A replica of God.

Both Solaris and Blade Runner, are simply the pimping of age old story of God and man.

Thus, Blade Runner doesn't take anything from Solaris, but both Solaris and Blade Runner, take from Judaism.

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

by criztu;

"Both Solaris and Blade Runner, are simply the pimping of age old story of God and man."

With all due respect, I first believe you are over simplifying the concept of the creation of humanity in ancient writings.

Secondly, I think that you are not appreciating the argument made by SFM which places Mary Shelley's Frankenstein as an essential influence on "Solaris" and "Blade Runner".

"The Golem is a concept in Jewish folklore, about a creature made from mud, from which the truth has been removed, that is, it lives in a corrupted state."

I don't believe that "corrupted state" accurately describes the concept.
Golems are replicas (created from mud) which are not fully human.
The Wikipedia article goes into detail about this;

Like Adam, all golems are created from mud by those close to divinity, but no anthropogenic golem is fully human. Early on, the main disability of the golem was its inability to speak. Sanhedrin 65b describes Rava creating a man (gavra). He sent the man to Rav Zeira. Rav Zeira spoke to him, but he did not answer. Rav Zeira said, "You were created by the sages; return to your dust".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golem

What is important here imo is that in Jewish folklore sages created golems. A member of the Sanhedrin, Rava, did it.
In other examples in the same article; Jewish mystics believed that golems could be created such as in the writings of Eleazar ben Judah.
In a story Rabbi Eliyahu is supposed to have created a golem.

* What is missing in your argument is that the Jewish tradition does not = the romantic tradition blended with science fiction.
Mary Shelly's Frankenstein is a fundamental example of romantic science fiction.
* In all the stories about golems I don't find;
- A condemnation of the rabbis who created golems. I can't find one example of that. There is no rebel like Dr. Frankenstein.
- There is no universal description of the Golem as a monster either. They could be protectors, they usually are neutral or they could be dangerous.
And some well known golem stories, such as The Golem of Prague, it seems was actually written after Shelly's book.

"In other words, the Golem is Adam. A replica of God."

Of course if man was made in the image of God, then every statue of a man is a replica of God.
But where I disagree is your breaking apart of the creation process and implying that Adam, was fully man when he was just a mud statue.
Here is the passage from the Jewish/Christian Bible, Genesis 2:7 which shows that the creation of man was a complete act and that the golem idea unnaturally splinters off just a piece of that act.

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being

Adam was fully a man created by the Judeo/Christian God in one sentence.

"Thus, Blade Runner doesn't take anything from Solaris, but both Solaris and Blade Runner, take from Judaism."

- I doubt that Ridley Scott and the writers of Blade Runner were delving into Jewish mysticism about mud statues that could walk.
- And what you've written misses that the creation of humans in religion are at the beginning of writings by humanity and are not limited to Judaism.
- Mary Shelly's novel has the title "Frankenstein; or, The Modern Prometheus" (considered the first SF novel with a massive influence on the genre).
Prometheus is a reference to the ancient Greek religious story of the creation of humanity.

Prometheus and Epimetheus, two Titans, were ... given the task of creating man. Prometheus shaped man out of mud, and Athena breathed life into his clay figure... Prometheus decided to make man stand upright just like the gods did and to give them fire...
Zeus was enraged that man again had fire. He decided to inflict a terrible punishment on both man and Prometheus.

http://www.greekmythology.com/Myths/The_Myths/Creation_of_Man_by_Prometheus/creation_of_man_by_prometheus.html

So, in Ancient Greek culture a god, Prometheus, shaped a human out of mud.
Secondly, this Prometheus was punished for the powers that he gave to humanity. He was cast out by Zeus and for the romantics he became a hero.
Dr. Frankenstein in Shelly's novel is this kind of outcast. There is a condemnation for trying to play God which the Jewish tradition does not have.

* From the starting point of Shelly's novel comes the mad scientist trying to be God. That is considered an evil by the greater society (but in the romantic tradition also heroic).
Second comes the creation of the mad scientist; the replica human which is considered a monster by the greater community (but also heroic in romanticism).
- This is the foundation which "Solaris" and "Blade Runner" are playing with.

Imo at least, BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

Excellent counterpoints, BB.

criztu: Thus, Blade Runner doesn't take anything from Solaris, but both Solaris and Blade Runner, take from Judaism.



-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

[–] criztu 8 years ago

And some well known golem stories, such as The Golem of Prague, it seems was actually written after Shelly's book.

It's very easy to see which one is the source, if you take a look at Hebrew:

emet = truth, written with the letters Alef-Mem-Tav
met = dead, written with the letters Mem-Tav

in Hebrew, God is truth. Alef is God. Alef-Tav is God. Alef-Tav is first and last letter.
in Christianity, God is truth. God is Beginning-End, Alfa-Omega. first and last letter.

if you remove Alef from the head of the word 'emet'(truth), you are left with 'met'(dead).

Thus, without God, 'truth' becomes 'dead'; without God, there is no life; without truth, man is dead.

adam = man, written with the letters Alef-Dalet-Mem
adamah = earth, written with the letters Alef-Dalet-Mem-He
dam = blood, written with the letters Dalet-Mem
damah = dummy, dumb written with the letters Dalet-Mem-He
domam = inanimate, written with the letters Dalet-Mem-Mem

as you can see, man is earth; without God (Alef), there is no man; inanimate, dummy, mute.

- I doubt that Ridley Scott and the writers of Blade Runner were delving into Jewish mysticism about mud statues that could walk.

I understand and respect that you doubt Ridley Scott. But you are not God, the Judge, a Know-All supreme authority. You have a lot to learn, before your doubt to be of relevance.

Blade Runner is about Eloah (Eldon Tyrell) creating angels and men, a third of the angels rebel in the Off-world, and they fall to earth, a lesser state, imperfect, corrupted. Where they lead the man on rebellion against the system put in place by Eloah.

Prometheus is a reference to the ancient Greek religious story of the creation of humanity.

Prometheus is the titan(second generation god) who steals the knowledge (of fire) from the Olympians(third generation gods). He is the torch bearer, leading men in a rebellion against the olympian gods.
Lucifer means the light bearer.
The Statue of Liberty represents Apollo bearing a torch, leading mankind to free themselves.
Apollo, Apollon, Apollyon, is the angel of destruction - Revelation 9:11

* From the starting point of Shelly's novel comes the mad scientist trying to be God. That is considered an evil by the greater society (but in the romantic tradition also heroic).

Yes, this is Eloah, in gnosticism - a lesser god. Know that Christianity is not Jewish Kabbalah, or Midrash or the Torah or Book of Baruch.
It is understandable that since you have no knowledge of the stuff in those works, would reach the (fatally erroneous) conclusion that Mary Shelly must be the source for the Jewish Golem, Solyaris, Blade Runner, etc.

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

by criztu;

"It is understandable that since you have no knowledge of the stuff in those works,"

Belief, faith, it comes down to what is right for you.
Then that leads to the question; what is knowledge from your view?
Maybe these statements from Wikipedia would resonate for you;

In many expressions of Christianity, such as Catholicism and Anglicanism, knowledge is one of the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit.[26]

The Old Testament's tree of the knowledge of good and evil contained the knowledge that separated Man from God: "And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil..." (Genesis 3:22)

In Gnosticism, divine knowledge or gnosis is hoped to be attained.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knowledge#Religious_meaning_of_knowledge

From your belief, you can certainly claim that I have no knowledge.
Since you have mentioned, Judaism, Christianity and Gnosticism, this is all I can say about my knowledge of religion; which for you would probably be meaningless.
I have read the following books.
- The Christian Bible cover to cover twice
- The Portable World Bible
- The Book of Enoch
- The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden
- The Nag Hammadi Library
- The Dead Sea Scrolls by Vermes
- The Gnostic Gospels
- Documents of the Christian Church edited by Bettenson
- Jesus the Jew by Vermes
- The Religion of Jesus the Jew by Vermes
- The Misunderstood Jew by Levine
- On Being a Christian by Kung
- The Messiah before Jesus by Knohl

And the list goes on...
But I doubt if any of that matters to you.

"I understand and respect that you doubt Ridley Scott."

This is why. I have read the book "Future Noir" which is about the production of "Blade Runner".
The writers and Scott were playing with the ideas from Dick's novel first and then they and Scott finally decided on ideas which are similar to "Solaris".

"But you are not God, the Judge, a Know-All supreme authority. You have a lot to learn, before your doubt to be of relevance."

I don't pretend to be God. And I don't claim to have divine inspiration or revelation especially in a review of an SF movie on IMDb.
- I approach this more like a detective. What was the more likely influence on Ridley Scott? The Talmud or books which are taught in liberal arts literature classes?

Ridley Scott; "studied at West Hartlepool College of Art from 1954 to 1958, obtaining a diploma in design.
Scott went on to study at the Royal College of Art"
"I use everything I learned everyday at art school. It's all about white sheets of paper, pens and drawing."

— Scott speaking on the influence the Royal College of Art has had in designing the visuals for his films.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ridley_Scott

In that kind of Art College curriculum the early romantic poets would come up and then Mary Shelly is a natural extension of that.
- in addition, Ridley Scott hosted 7 episodes of a TV series called "Prophets of Science Fiction" (2011)
He was also an executive producer.
The first episode title? 'Mary Shelly'.

* Anyway, I'm most willing to agree to disagree.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] criztu 8 years ago

I have read the following books.
- The Christian Bible cover to cover twice

And you still think Mary Shelley invented the concept of "a being created from inanimate matter, in the image of its creator - a dude who knows stuff"?

This is why. I have read the book "Future Noir" which is about the production of "Blade Runner".
The writers and Scott were playing with the ideas from Dick's novel first and then they and Scott finally decided on ideas which are similar to "Solaris".

Yes, I told you, I understand that you doubt Ridley Scott. I too doubt him. I think he is not telling us what Blade Runner is really about.
Think of Bush jr. who told the world that America has to invade Iraq, because Sattan has weapons of mass destruction. I dare say you know very well that Bush jr. was bullsh!tting us all.

- I approach this more like a detective. What was the more likely influence on Ridley Scott?

Freemasonry. Hermeticism. Gnosticism. Alchemy.

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

Ridley Scott: "Deeper meaning? There is no deeper meaning in Blade Runner. It's a frigging comic book movie! It's meant to be fun!*

*paraphrased

[–] little_wing 8 years ago

Ridley Scott in 1984 interview with Danny Peary:

I don't see this film as being this serious. I make films to entertain, and this was really meant to be a "heavy metal" comic strip about a future society and a character who just happens to be a replicant detective. I don't think the film is about several types of endangered species. It's a film about some goodies and baddies. The baddies are presented as replicants who, we discover eventually, are like all good anti-heroes in that they have sympathetic streaks. At this point the balance of the drama changes -- but this film does not have any deep messages.

Omni's Screen Flights / Screen Fantasies: The Future According to Science Fiction

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

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

by little_wing;

"Ridley Scott in 1984 interview with Danny Peary:"

this film does not have any deep messages.

One thing to keep in mind is that what is not deep for Ridley Scott may be very complicated for many movie goers.

A very bright film creator spends years working on a film. They know the material inside and out.
But the audience walks into the theater (or puts in a DVD) for the first time knowing almost nothing.
Many audience members are also distracted with kids, friends, texting.
Lots of viewers can lose interest in a film because the movie doesn't fit expectations which is often a common cliche or it deviates from the source material.

Take the progression of the antagonists as described by Scott;

The baddies are presented as replicants who, we discover eventually, are like all good anti-heroes in that they have sympathetic streaks.

To this day, this character progression baffles many people on IMDb (even leading to extreme anger). And that includes some viewers who are very familiar with Dick's novel and who are film enthusiasts.
- Secondly, Ridley puts some visuals and dialogue which relate to the oppressor / slave master trope and slavery itself.
While this would be simple for Scott, these messages often go over the head of some viewers on IMDb.
Or it sets up a fairly complex comparison with Dick's novel.

- It is difficult for any film itself to be as deep as a 1,000 page Russian novel.
Wells thought that the core of Citizen Kane was just dime store Freud.
But what is simple to a genius level creator is not necessarily = to the reaction of the viewer.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

by criztu;

"And you still think Mary Shelley invented the concept of "a being created from inanimate matter, in the image of its creator"

No. I quoted the Genesis passage from the Bible about man's creation and I quoted a passage about man's creation from Greek mythology.
Those sources are a general influence in Western culture.

"I think he is not telling us what Blade Runner is really about."

Yes, that seems to be your argument that there is some secret / unknown meaning to "Blade Runner".
We will just have to agree to disagree about that.

I accept the information from the book "Future Noir" about the development of the script.
I believe it is possible for BR to have been influenced by "Solaris".
And I know that Ridley Scott was familiar with all the pioneers of the science fiction genre, including Mary Shelly, because he introduced and was the executive producer of a TV series about that.

I also know that Ridley had an art college education. I know the kind of literature taught in liberal arts colleges from ancient myths to novels/poetry, including romantic novels/poetry.

But I acknowledge that there are lots of ways to interpret BR and I respect that.

"Freemasonry. Hermeticism. Gnosticism. Alchemy."

I have come across some people on IMDb who are interested in those topics.
I respect different view points / interpretations.
More power to you and your exploration.

(Even though I am taking a different path.)

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈

[–] criztu 8 years ago

I also know that Ridley had an art college education.

Well, you obviously didn't have art education, because if you did, you'd know that up to the impressionists, western art is all about religious double meaning - you see the nude of a lady with long blonde hair standing in a seashell, the initiated sees Venus, the shining one.

[–] CremersAlex 8 years ago

Well, you obviously didn't have art education, because if you did, you'd know that up to the impressionists, western art is all about religious double meaning -

That's why the movies of Zack Snyder are so deep and filled with dual meaning but people don't believe me.

you see the nude of a lady with long blonde hair standing in a seashell, the initiated sees Venus, the shining one.

We know it's Venus because the painting is called The Birth Of Venus. Double meaning always refers to what is not clearly stated.

[–] criztu 8 years ago

We know it's Venus because the painting is called The Birth Of Venus. Double meaning always refers to what is not clearly stated.

You know it's Venus because the museum tells you it's Venus. But Botticelli didn't write on the painting: -you guys, this is Venus!. As far as it can be asserted from the painting by the profane, it's a naked lady with long hair.

Neither does Ridley Scott tell you who are the characters in Blade Runner. As far as it can be asserted from the movie by the profane, it's a human falling in love with a genetically engineered robot.
In 2-300 years, maybe the Academy will decide to give you a guide to this movie: This is God, that is Venus, that mofo is Mercury, that other one is the Philosopher, there's the Whore of Babylon. Until then, you'll have to figure it out for yourself.

[–] DrAndreiSmyslov 8 years ago

Neither does Ridley Scott tell you who are the characters in Blade Runner.

BRYANT: "That's Leon. Ammunition loader of inter-galactic runs. He can lift 400 pound atomic loads all day and night. The only way you can hurt him is to kill him."

BRYANT: "Roy Batty. Incept date 2016. Combat model. Optimum self-sufficiency. Probably the leader."

BRYANT: "This is Zhora. She's trained for an off-world kick-murder squad. Talk about beauty and the beast, she's both."

BRYANT: "The fourth skin job is Pris. A basic pleasure model. The standard item for military clubs in the outer colonies."

RACHAEL: "Very. I'm Rachael."

DECKARD: "Deckard."

RACHAEL: "Mr. Deckard. Dr. Eldon Tyrell."

SEBASTIAN: Mine's J.F. Sebastian....... I make friends. They're toys. My friends are toys. I make them. It's a hobby. I'm a genetic designer.

 ciztu just.....cannot.....stop........ sticking his foot in his mouth.

-------------------------
One of these days I'm going to cut you into little pieces.

[–] BB-15 8 years ago

I've seen the Botticelli The Birth of Venus in person at the Ufizi Galery in Florence.

Not bragging but just trying to provide information to you.

BB ;-)

it is just in my opinion - imo - 🌈