ZylonBane on 28/12/2007 at 00:04
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
Leave it to ZylonBane to not know how to take a hint.
And leave it to RBJ to be a festering douchebag.
Madin on 28/12/2007 at 01:06
The replicant 'cats eye' effect was hardly subtle. It was reserved in the film solely for replicants, and has such its implicit that Deckard was a replicant.
Whats interesting is that it was R.Scotts idea to make it has obvious has it was that Deckard was a Replicant. The early scripts were a lot more subtle and at least one writer was upset with R.Scotts handling of the whole 'Deckard the replicant' thing.
The sixth replicant was 'Mary', she got cut due budget and time restraint. The part of 'Mary' survived several rewrites and went has far has having an actress cast to play her (Stacey Nelkin).
Rug Burn Junky on 28/12/2007 at 01:26
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
And leave it to RBJ to be a festering douchebag.
Actually, the festering douchebag is the one is the who can actually type out the words that says that the director who made the movie believes a fact about the movie, and that said director has placed "strong hints" about such fact, and yet
can't connect the dots himself.
Most of us that actually have some sensibility and culture appreciate subtlety, and don't need things spelled out for us literally in order to know what's going on. Then there's you, who has absolutely no ability to communicate in anything but the most base and literal fashion.
Maybe you ought to take a break from the forums. ;)
demagogue on 28/12/2007 at 01:27
ZB would be on to something if this were an academic course on literary criticism, formally speaking the text has to speak for itself; but on a human level sometimes you just have to call a duck a duck.
The tell for me was something like Deckard at the piano, with all these suspiciously old-fashioned photos of his "family" on it, looking at them like he was trying to remember something ... coupled with the dialog about how they plant false memories & shallow relics like photos to lead replicants on.
Although it was a slow movie, there really was great dialog in it:
Roy: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die.
The_Raven on 28/12/2007 at 02:01
Yeah, I was pretty long in the tooth after I saw the 1992 director's cut. I didn't really get the unicorn thing until I saw the "Deckard is a replicant" theory on the Blade Runner wiki. In my own defense, I was having trouble getting past the fact that all the narration, which I didn't mind when I saw the movie in middle school, was missing. Once I started on that train of thought, it was the only logical explanation of the events.
Rug Burn Junky on 28/12/2007 at 04:52
Quote Posted by demagogue
ZB would be on to something if this were an academic course on literary criticism, formally speaking the text has to speak for itself;
But that's just it, the text/movie DOES speak for itself. It's well couched, and not explicitly spelled out, but it's most certainly not ambiguous to anyone that doesn't have a problem understanding subtext. As Raven, and many, many others have said "it was the only logical explanation of the events."
Scots Taffer on 28/12/2007 at 05:32
Quote Posted by demagogue
Roy: I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the darkness at Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die.
A good portion of which was ad-libbed, I believe.
Madin on 28/12/2007 at 09:47
Quote Posted by Scots Taffer
A good portion of which was ad-libbed, I believe.
"All those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain. Time to die."
Thats all he ad-libbed. He did however shorten the original scripted speech.
Rogue Keeper on 28/12/2007 at 14:23
I think I'm already useless in this thread. The risk of vacation. :cool:
Everyone enjoy the Final Cut and Dangerous Days. (Geez, they made me a bit famous by showing my nick at Bladezone forums index *blushing*)
ZylonBane on 28/12/2007 at 15:38
Quote Posted by Rug Burn Junky
But that's just it, the text/movie DOES speak for itself. It's well couched, and not explicitly spelled out, but it's most certainly not ambiguous to anyone that doesn't have a problem understanding subtext.
You are, of course, wrong. If Deckard being a replicant really was so obvious, there certainly wouldn't have been almost 30 years worth of debate over whether he's a replicant or not, now would there? And we wouldn't have the actor who played him saying he's not a replicant.
