tanniger: The quotes in this article all share the same source: the documentary Dangerous Days: Making Blade Runner directed by Charles de Lauzirika. This can be found on the Blade Runner 5-Disc Complete Collector’s Edition DVD. There have been a lot of people writing about the same series of events when it comes to Blade Runner, but their fine work does not appear anywhere in this article.

Kimberly: I’m sure you’ve seen Flesh+Blood. Rutger Hauer had a good decade indeed. I’m sure he’s gotten a lot of mileage with the ladies by telling them he wrote the “tears in the rain” dialogue. I’m kind of surprised you’ve “only” seen this 10+ times. Thanks for commenting!

Kelsy: Blade Runner is most definitely a classic, but that doesn’t mean you have to like it. I haven’t worked up the motivation to watch anything directed by Wim Wenders in its entirety.

Matthew: A Festival of Violence makes me concerned what effect watching all those movies in a row might have on me. The M. Night Shyamalan series is an interesting idea, though. I think the quality of his six films is directly related to how long he spent writing them. The Happening seems like it was written in the waiting room at Jiffy Lube. Thanks for commenting!

Jim: Both Harrison Ford and Hampton Fancher have disputed the fan notion that Deckard is a Replicant. One of the subtexts of the film is that 21st century man is losing its humanity and that it takes an android to sort of wake Deckard up to this. If he’s a Replicant, it doesn’t make any sense. Illogic aside, I enjoy watching the film as well. Thanks so much for sharing your thoughts with the class.

But I love watching “Blade Runner.” It’s such a deep dive into atmosphere and design.

But the fact of the matter is: Ridley Scott doesn’t know what it’s about. He thinks it’s about rock’em-sock’em replicants. He’s convinced himself and planted images that suggest Deckard is a replicant.

But that’s just stupid. Is it the story of a jaded human assassin who re-finds his humanity in the struggle for life of his targets? Or is it the story of a replicant who finds…what? What does he learn?

And if Scott believes that Deckard is a more advanced replicant (as he states in an interview in Sammon’s book), why does Batty wipe the floor with him?

I’m not sure why those who subscribe to the Deckard-is-a-replicant theory are so adamant about it, I suspect that they’re just creeped out with a Deckard-Rachel relationship (but there are “pleasure-model replicants,” so what’s the problem….)

I believe what I want to believe, and Scott can tinker as much as he wants—I’m not sure why folks demonize Lucas for this habit, but turn a blind eye to Scott doing the same thing.

I guess I’m not sure about a lot of things about “Blade Runner”—which puts me in company with its director.

It’s always good reading, Joe. Bravo.

Also, maybe do a series on M. Night Shyamalan too? Some fun stories behind them, and I’d love hear what you think about those as well.