From: lukas.mariman@REMOVETHISdommel.be
Gnomus wrote:
> In article <60ip9qF1qb9s7U1@mid.individual.net>, Sentinel
> wrote:
>
>> Eberhard Schefold wrote:
>>> Sentinel wrote:
>>>
>>>> I can understand how people feel the issue should have been left
>>>> ambiguous, but it really is not. *That* is what the unicorn is
>>>> about; *that* is why we see Deckard with the Glowing Eyes.
>>>>
>>>> This is not a matter of "opinion" as some like to pretend it is.
>>>> Also, saying Scott doesn't have the final word in this matter is
>>>> IMHO utterly silly.
>>>
>>> I herewith state for the record that I disagree, but that I'm too
>>> lazy to reiterate all those discussions for one more round (at
>>> least for the time being).
>>>
>>> What I find a little alarming this time is when people are not even
>>> being entitled to their own opinion on how to interpret a movie.
>>> That's a bit thick.
>>
>> Putting it bluntly, there's simply nothing to be interpreted here.
>
> Of course there is. Every viewer has to take the information given to
> them (which is going to vary based on education, age, maturity, native
> language, etc.) and make sense of it. If you're saying that I have to
> watch BR and see Deckard as a replicant, then I'm going to stop
> watching the movie and drop out of this group. It offers nothing to
> me in that case. But since I prefer the OV and see Deckard as human,
> I connect with the story and stay involved.
>
> Now admit it: you're secretly trying to drive me out of here!
Yep. that's always been my plan.
1. Drive Gnomus away!
2. Enslave humanity!
3. Get more bandwidth. Sammit!
Anyway, I'm not telling anyone what to do or how to "interpret" BR. I'm just
posting my POV which BTW is what it has always been. If you don't agree, so
be it. We've all gotten along just fine without ever agreeing on deck-a-rep,
so why would this time be any different?
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
