http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/bladerunner.htm

Odinists explore their rich religious heritage discussing the movie Blade Runner. Heh heh.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/bladerunner.htm

Odinists explore their rich religious heritage discussing the movie Blade Runner. Heh heh.


I don't know about this movie. I heard about it for years, but to me it was pretty much boring to unwatchable. I'm still trying to find some copies of Philip Dick books in print. He's written a million titles, but they're hard to find.

I recall the book being very different from the movie. The book focused on the life of the cyborg hunter (Ford in movie). In the movie they played up the cyborg killing his creator and how wrong it was to create ckyborgs just to endure a short life of hard labor on a mine planet. Even the ending was changed. In the book the cyborg hunter (Ford in movie) kills the women cyborg and then goes back to his wife. In the movie he runs off with the cyborg to a new life.
Try looking for the book at a half priced book store or maybe a thrift shop. I bought and read it years ago when I found out it was based on a book. It is a good read.

I don't know about this movie. I heard about it for years, but to me it was pretty much boring to unwatchable. I'm still trying to find some copies of Philip Dick books in print. He's written a million titles, but they're hard to find.


Which is why it is such a great movie. I would expect you of all people to be able to enjoy the finer qualities of a film rather than the instant-gratification action, rapid and frenetic scene changes, and empty plotlines full of pretty pictures of star wars and star trek.

There is something deeper and more meaningful in Blade Runner than the typical "Evil Empire" (dare I say nazi-esque?) and struggling rebels with hearts-of-gold that is the foundation for damn near every science fiction "epic" released...from Star Wars to The Matrix.

http://www.hollywoodjesus.com/bladerunner.htm

Odinists explore their rich religious heritage discussing the movie Blade Runner. Heh heh.


Why do you have to bring xtianity into everything that you discuss in this forum?
Odinists are not so obsessed about their religion that it has to permeate every aspect of their existence.
You really need to get a life.

I don't know about this movie. I heard about it for years, but to me it was pretty much boring to unwatchable.

That's about how I feel about it. I've tried several times, but I can't sit through the entire movie without my mind drifting off several times.

It's basically a police detective movie (a genre I don't care for) with some special effects thrown in.

The last 20 minutes always holds my attention, though. Rutger Hauer's death scene is played perfectly.

I thought Blade Runner was excellent.

There's an Outer Limit's episode (1960's series) called "Duplicate Man" which was Blade Runner to a tee. I'm surprised they didn't sue over that.

I thought Blade Runner was excellent.

Me too.

The director's cut improved the movie, primarily by removing the feel-good scene at the end. I watched the director's cut not knowing that this "We're going to Disneyland, and everything is going to be wonderful now," scene had been deleted. What a joy, to see the credits start. I was so pleased, I had to watch the now almost flawless movie again.

Enkidu

I hate movies that turn on the question "When do robots become human?" because the answer is very simple. Never!

Blade Runner is quality cinema. It's directed by one of my favorite directors, Ridley Scott. Half-jew Harrison Ford plays Decker, the blade runner. And a woman I always found extremely gorgeous, Sean Young, plays a replicant named Rachel. Her looks were, to me, almost perfect. And the beautiful Darryl Hannah plays the replicant Pris. Aryan Nordic archetype Rutget Hauer plays Roy Batty, the leader of the gang.

Blade runners are cops who specialise in terminating replicants. Replicants, or "skin jobs" have been declared illegal since a bloody uprising on an off-world colony. Somone who runs along a blade's edge runs a thin line. For if a replicant ever got hold of your neck, they could snap it without breaking a sweat. Replicants are to be terminated on spot. Five replicants (androids, or robots who appear human) have escaped a mining installation on one of the moons of Jupiter. They have hijacked a ship and returned to Earth to find their maker. They discovered that they've been programmed to last only 4 years and thus want to seek out Tyrell of the massive Tyrell Corporation and have themselves reprogrammed. It's a very...philosophical film.

The film might be called a future noir detective story. Ridley Scott and the art team created a dystopic, dark, gritty Los Angeles of 2019. There is a heavy japanese-techno influence as well as vast buildings belching forth columns of flame, and loads of flying craft and futuristic stuff. It was breakthrough in it's set design and art direction. LA 2019 looks a little like Coruscant with smog.

The film questions what it means to be human. What it means to be conscious, and self-aware. The robots want to survive, not necessarily be human. If allowed to survive, they would be not only perfect, but immortal. And their abilities are quite super-human. Machine strength, stamina, speed, and invincibility. It is no wonder they long to survive.

Anyway, it's an excellent film. Highly recommended. Hasn't everyone seen it? Great "background" movie to play at a house party or something. And I heard Sean Young really despised Harrison Ford. The director's cut is far better than the regular version. It really touches on something that will be very relevant to humans in a few hundred years, and that is robots that appear to be human. Many other films have tackled this theme, such as AI and The Terminator, but Blade Runner was the first big one. Much of the film looks like it was inspired by big Japanese cities.

Trivia tidbit: in the director's cut, the happy ending involves Decker and Rachel driving off into the Rocky Mountains to escape their pasts. This footage was used by Stanley Kubrick for the beginning of The Shining, where the little orange car is seen driving along the mountain road.

Can't believe you didn't like it Herr Linder.

"All those moments will be lost in time...like tears in rain."---Roy Batty

http://bau2.uibk.ac.at/perki/films/brunner/spinner.gif

http://dandalf.com/dandalf/bladezhora.gif

Why do you have to bring xtianity into everything that you discuss in this forum?
Odinists are not so obsessed about their religion that it has to permeate every aspect of their existence.
You really need to get a life.


Christianity is the Rolls Royce of religions. Odinism is like a car without an engine.

the Cyborg series with Van Damme

But the man himself only starred in he first one, correct?

a woman I always found extremely gorgeous, Sean Young

Gaaahh, Hammer of Tor protect me!! That woman scarred me for life. A mere runt of a boy, I was, innocently zapping channels, when suddenly, out of nowhere, the horrendous image of this putrid harridan - stark naked, sporting the most lop-sided bush ever recorded - comes tearing its way out from the screen and onto my retinas, burning through to my unsullied mind, twisting it beyond recognition.

It's a very...philosophical film.

Well, you're a very... philosophical kind of guy, so that works out nicely, then.

The film questions what it means to be human. What it means to be conscious, and self-aware.

Whereas I find myself pondering the concept of pretentiousness, and its resonance with a contemporary audience.

Trivia tidbit: in the director's cut, the happy ending involves Decker and Rachel driving off into the Rocky Mountains to escape their pasts. This footage was used by Stanley Kubrick for the beginning of The Shining, where the little orange car is seen driving along the mountain road.

Wow! That's great!

(Ok, I really am sorry. It's just that I have to unload all this bottled up snideness, lest it fester and eventually makes me fat or something.)

"All those moments will be lost in time...like tears in rain."---Roy Batty


Yes, that is a good one. This one stayed with me even longer, for some unfathomable reason:

"It's too bad she won't live - but then again who does?"

B movies like Blind Fury

Why don't you step over here and repeat that? Carve you up right and proper, I will.

But the man himself only starred in he first one, correct?



Gaaahh, Hammer of Tor protect me!! That woman scarred me for life. A mere runt of a boy, I was, innocently zapping channels, when suddenly, out of nowhere, the horrendous image of this putrid harridan - stark naked, sporting the most lop-sided bush ever recorded - comes tearing its way out from the screen and onto my retinas, burning through to my unsullied mind, twisting it beyond recognition.



Well, you're a very... philosophical kind of guy, so that works out nicely, then.



Whereas I find myself pondering the concept of pretentiousness, and its resonance with a contemporary audience.



Wow! That's great!

(Ok, I really am sorry. It's just that I have to unload all this bottled up snideness, lest it fester and eventually makes me fat or something.)



Yes, that is a good one. This one stayed with me even longer, for some unfathomable reason:

"It's too bad she won't live - but then again who does?"



Why don't you step over here and repeat that? Carve you up right and proper, I will.

Fuck you! Fuck you twice!

Nordblod, you should head on back to Sweden,

I was simply commenting on a movie.

Whereas you got personal.

I will rip you up if you mess with me further, you fat bastard.

Oh, yeah!? You wouldn't dare!!

You are European, are you not? Hence, inured to vast plots, parcels, and hectares of hair betwixt women's legs, nestled in pits of arm, wafting gently in the breeze from bare legs in summer dresses?


That's just ugly prejudice talking.

So, perhaps we would have to ask the A.I. itself what preference it has.

A) Be the final series of such machines to ever be created again, but entitled to full rights as if it was a person.

B) Let such machines continue to be produced, but they would exist as property with no rights.

Maybe we should just unplug the damn thing. If men could produce/birth living beings from their own bodies, would they be so fascinated with creating artificial "humans"? It seem like a hung up preoccupation to me.

Compare a machine to a new born baby. There's never going to be a machine that requires any right or privilege that the kid gets. Although it is a bit sad when a beautiful, quality machine wears out and gets thrown in the garbage, because "they will never make them like that again".

But when the machine gets out of whack and starts trying to kill people, it's time to get out the screwdriver (or whatever) and shut it down, no matter how much the machine begs for mercy.

Glad you asked! Of course a robot would never be human. Let's clarify things and take it to a higher level.

"When does a self aware artificial intelligence attain rights and priviledges as a human has?"

Whether such an A.I. has mobility at all is irrelevant. Would it qualify as an intelligent being? Yes.

Is intelligent being a prerequisite to rights and priviledges or is there something more?

As a creation of man, it could be property of the creator, like a slave with no right to life if the creator wished to terminate it.

Taking a traditional xtian view on this, god is fully entitled to terminate human life because god is the creator of humans.

A rational view might favor rights for the self aware machine if it isn't a danger to itself or others.

But, if it attains rights it can no longer be considered property. What incentive would a creator have to continue producing such machines? Probably none.

So, perhaps we would have to ask the A.I. itself what preference it has.

A) Be the final series of such machines to ever be created again, but entitled to full rights as if it was a person.

B) Let such machines continue to be produced, but they would exist as property with no rights.

beware of any slaves they always try and rise up. sometimes the tool controls the hand that wields it-

Ridley Scott is a great pro-White to race neutral director. Except for the nigger buddy aspect Gladiator shows White virtues such as courage, sacrifice and loyalty --"strength and honor"-- as few recent films do, supposedly the stubborness of Russell Crowe had a lot to do with that: "Go, and die with honor." I wouldn't consider the treachery of Comodus and his General to be anti-White, more for dramatic effect. Not a very historically accurate Marcus Aurelius, but though it's not a sophisticated movie, I do think it is an inspirational one.

WN's have seen a racial metaphor in Alien, but I think that's reaching.

I agree with Linder as to the unwatchability of Blade Runner, concurring with others that it is a transposed film noir detective story set in the future to showcase special effects.

That being said, I feel the one saving grace of the movie is Rutger Hauer's performance. In movies like this and Solider of Orange you see that the Nederlander Hauer could have been the premier Nordic actor of our time. I think he could have been what Max von Sydow was to Ingmar Bergman in films such as The Seventh Seal, viz. a strong, complex, and ultimately virtuous character.

No wonder the jews have this Nordic bashing meme in films like Caddyshack, Bachelor Party, etc.. With features like those of the youthful Von Sydow or Hauer, you can't convincingly portray these men as evil without years of conditioning. What Linder said about an Aryan Christ comes to mind: a Christ of any other race is literally unthinkable, especially a semite.

Anne Rice wanted Hauer to play Lestat in Interview with The Vampire, but he's been relegated to roles in B movies like Blind Fury practically since the days of Blade Runner. Coincidence? I think not.

Interesting comments. I loved that Gladiator film. I thought it well depicted the Spaniard as a rooted, virtuous, enracinated person, in contrast to the deracinated, perverse, wickedCommodus.

I thought I would be disappointed with Tom Cruise's Lestat, but I wasnt.

Yes, as in Tail Wags the Dog. But, maybe a dispassionate and completely objective A.I. would be a beneficial overlord. Immune to corruption, scandal, temptation, persuasion, blackmail, emotional reaction, if programmatically structured to uphold the ideals of the Aryan man, family, community and city-state without deviation.

I am no programmer but my understanding of logic both in terms of philosophy and mathematics and symbolic reasoning, is that it all builds on given premises. thus, the framing of the rules for the program by some human programmer to me makes the idea of "completely objective" AI something of an impossibility.

in a sense, every script read by a machine is completely objective in terms of inflexibility. randoms are generated, but only on cue and as part of a larger scheme. and so forth.