I find it to be a bit of a shame that anyone would come forth about whether Deckard is a replicant. What is great about the film, and especially the director's cut, is that it is left ambiguous, while the viewer is left to his or her own opinions. I have alluded to this concept in films before, and this reinforces it even more. Why do you always have to understand every intention an artist has, like being obsessed with asking the question "what is it?" about a painting? It is what you think it is - part of the beauty of art is that it is open to interpretation, just as the end of this great movie is. By knowing Scott's intent to portray Deckard as a replicant, a part of the mysticism and interest of the movie is taken away. I compare this to the proposed Terminator 3 movie. No one needs to make this, for starters. But the Judgment Day movie makes one wonder if the heroes will actually stop, prevent or change the perceived future scenerio (like in Back to the Future), or not be able to change anything at all (like in 12 Monkeys). By showing a war between man and machine, as this new movie is reported to show, one scenerio is favored over the other. What is wrong with just not knowing?
So jeers to Ridley Scott. He should know better. It is like giving away magic secrets. Some things should just be left alone.
Rather interesting, but as far as the number of replicants go, Ridley seems to be changing his story quite a bit. He used to claim that Deckard was supposed to hunt down the number of replicants mentioned at the start of the film, but length and budget interfered, and one of the replicant roles were chopped. They chose not to reshoot the original scene to make the numbers line up correctly.
Mr. Scott seems to be taking lessons from Mr. Dylan and Mr. Tarrantino on changing one's story with time.
But the unicorn scene is still perhaps some sort of sign. I personally prefer the story more if Deckard isn't a replicant, and I will blissfully delude myself to increase my joy watching Blade Runner, one of my favorite films.
Oh, and I like the original more than the director's cut. Nyah, nyah, nyah.
Dylan delights (or at least used to delight) in telling various versions of his past. Some of his early press releases are quite a hoot to read. He also loves to give various meanings of songs, usually because he doesn't like to explain his work. I can understand this.
As far as Tarantino, I was alluding to that darned band-aid on the back of Ving's head. He originally claimed that it was a result of Ving cutting himself shaving, and that he thought it was more interesting to stare at than a featureless bald head. I tend to believe this story. Later, when the legends of Ving's soul being in the suitcase started circulating, people believed the bandage covered the place where the devil stole his soul from his body. Q originally denied this, but I have read at least one interview where he affirmed this tale. Sometimes fans of films create better explanations and legends for the work than their creators do (see similar Star Wars tales on this website), and perhaps too often, directors just go with it.
I find it to be a bit of a shame that anyone would come forth about whether Deckard is a replicant. What is great about the film, and especially the director's cut, is that it is left ambiguous, while the viewer is left to his or her own opinions. I have alluded to this concept in films before, and this reinforces it even more. Why do you always have to understand every intention an artist has, like being obsessed with asking the question "what is it?" about a painting? It is what you think it is - part of the beauty of art is that it is open to interpretation, just as the end of this great movie is. By knowing Scott's intent to portray Deckard as a replicant, a part of the mysticism and interest of the movie is taken away. I compare this to the proposed Terminator 3 movie. No one needs to make this, for starters. But the Judgment Day movie makes one wonder if the heroes will actually stop, prevent or change the perceived future scenerio (like in Back to the Future), or not be able to change anything at all (like in 12 Monkeys). By showing a war between man and machine, as this new movie is reported to show, one scenerio is favored over the other. What is wrong with just not knowing?
So jeers to Ridley Scott. He should know better. It is like giving away magic secrets. Some things should just be left alone.
LOL. Just one question, is Harrison Ford's nose really that crooked or is it just a scanning mishap?
Rather interesting, but as far as the number of replicants go, Ridley seems to be changing his story quite a bit. He used to claim that Deckard was supposed to hunt down the number of replicants mentioned at the start of the film, but length and budget interfered, and one of the replicant roles were chopped. They chose not to reshoot the original scene to make the numbers line up correctly.
Mr. Scott seems to be taking lessons from Mr. Dylan and Mr. Tarrantino on changing one's story with time.
But the unicorn scene is still perhaps some sort of sign. I personally prefer the story more if Deckard isn't a replicant, and I will blissfully delude myself to increase my joy watching Blade Runner, one of my favorite films.
Oh, and I like the original more than the director's cut. Nyah, nyah, nyah.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs
Interesting; I didn't know about Scott's earlier Bladerunner explanations. What are the Dylan and Tarantino stories?
Dylan delights (or at least used to delight) in telling various versions of his past. Some of his early press releases are quite a hoot to read. He also loves to give various meanings of songs, usually because he doesn't like to explain his work. I can understand this.
As far as Tarantino, I was alluding to that darned band-aid on the back of Ving's head. He originally claimed that it was a result of Ving cutting himself shaving, and that he thought it was more interesting to stare at than a featureless bald head. I tend to believe this story. Later, when the legends of Ving's soul being in the suitcase started circulating, people believed the bandage covered the place where the devil stole his soul from his body. Q originally denied this, but I have read at least one interview where he affirmed this tale. Sometimes fans of films create better explanations and legends for the work than their creators do (see similar Star Wars tales on this website), and perhaps too often, directors just go with it.
Shalom, y'all!
L. Bangs