From: lukas.mariman@REMOVETHISdommel.be   
      
   Gnomus wrote:   
   > In article , Netrunner   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> Standing in the dark, rainy shadows of a city alleyway, I spied the   
   >> Replicant Sentinel covertly transmitting a message to renegade   
   >> friends in alt.fan.blade-runner.  Tracking...   
   >>   
   >>> Gnomus wrote:   
   >>>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>>> More subtle? With the VO and the "happy ending"?   
   >>>>>>>   
   >>>>>> No, in terms of the whole Deck-a-rep thing.  It's gotten to the   
   >>>>>> point where Ridley Scott is calling people morons if they don't   
   >>>>>> get it.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Well, he was clearly being in a joking mood when he said that, for   
   >>>>> whatever that is worth.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Was he?  I'll have to watch it again.   
   >>>   
   >>> Well, he was laughing, so I wouldn't take that *too* serious. He   
   >>> obviously has a sense of humour about it.   
   >>   
   >> What kinda irritates me is how he talks about how interesting the   
   >> whole idea of the ambiguity was, but then goes right on and says that   
   >> Deckard is a Replicant.  However, I still have enough strength to   
   >> stand up and fight and no matter what his credentials and me being   
   >> "just a fan", I will still hold to my view that the Director is not   
   >> the Film.  That once released he cannot control the viewer's   
   >> experience of the World that was created.  There is still nothing   
   >> within the World of the BR:FC movie itself that defines Deckard as a   
   >> Replicant.  I can entertain the concept without accepting it and will   
   >> argue until the end of time to defend that position.   
   >>   
   >   
   > There are a few things that Scott is not too sharp on.  Another one   
   > concerns the idea that Deckard reaffirms his humanity, which Scott   
   > called "intellectual" and said that he's not interested in making "an   
   > esoteric film."  (Of course, he then went on to make a movie almost   
   > totally devoted to intellectual concerns...)   
   >   
   > Fancher was writing with the understanding that Deckard is human.   
   > It's pretty standard storytelling that a protagonist has both   
   > external and internal journeys.  In this case, Deckard's external   
   > journey is to find and retire the reps; his internal journey is that   
   > he rediscovers his humanity.  Yet Scott has no understanding of this   
   > fundamental concept.   
   >   
   > Net, I have to agree with your take re:  interpretation.  If I want to   
   > think of Deckard as an evil tooth fairy (hey -- an early opening scene   
   > had him ripping the jaw out of a rep!), then I'll do it.  Every viewer   
   > has to make sense out of the movies they watch.  Every movie has   
   > slang, foreign words, etc., that may not be familiar to all people.   
   > Not everyone is going to interpret visual symbols in the same way.   
   >   
   > Sentinel, Scott is free to explain his intentions if he wants to, but   
   > the viewer is under no obligation to take his intentions into   
   > consideration.   
      
   Yeah, whatever...   
      
   Oh, just listen to yourselves!   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)