FAQ  •  Login

Holden...muddying the waters?

<<

Leon Corporation

User avatar

Rep Detector Handler
Rep Detector Handler

Posts: 342

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:56 pm

Post Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:50 am

Masao wrote:The whole eye issue may be a red herring. After all, if the reflections in the eyes are the indicator of a replicant, why not carry a small flashlight rather than a bulky VK machine??


This was clearly a cinematic device solely meant for viewer's eyes and comparable with the 'little girl in red' in Schindler's List.
Image
Leon Corporation Employee
<<

Masao

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 232

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:54 am

Post Wed Mar 29, 2006 10:46 pm

This was clearly a cinematic device solely meant for viewer's eyes and comparable with the 'little girl in red' in Schindler's List.[/quote]

Was it?

If it was, it was one of the worst examples of dramatic timing in a film. If it was meant to be a Twilight Zone style zinger it needed to go at the end while he escapes with Rachael. Doing it somewhere in the middle was a mistake on many levels.

I take it for what it was; a mistake in editing. No one caught Ford's eyes at the time. Scott just goofed and is covering his butt now.

At the same time, how do we know that enhancements aren't fashioable ala Cyberpunk?? Remember that William Gibson was just becoming recognized around this time. His idea was that it would become a fashion statement to have cyber-enhancements instead of natural limbs.

Perhaps having genetically enhanced parts is a fashion statement in the unexplored undercurrents of the story. It was Tyrell himself that suggested this possibility.

There is also quite a bit of the novel that is not explored in the film.
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:29 pm

no offense but all of your statements are just your opinion and less researched than Paul M Sammon's. Also DADoES ideas were changed so dramaticly into the film that it can not be used as evidence anymore. The film is more the creation of Ridley and the screenwriters than PKD now. At the same time we are all allowed to have our own "beliefs" about the film because like all "art" it is best when it touches each person differently. Just please don't tell us you know more than those that have actually talked to the sources. I am glad you feel passionately about the film though, and I am sorry if it seems I am trying to take that away from you.
Image
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:31 pm

Masao wrote:This was clearly a cinematic device solely meant for viewer's eyes and comparable with the 'little girl in red' in Schindler's List

Was it?

If it was, it was one of the worst examples of dramatic timing in a film. If it was meant to be a Twilight Zone style zinger it needed to go at the end while he escapes with Rachael. Doing it somewhere in the middle was a mistake on many levels.

I take it for what it was; a mistake in editing. No one caught Ford's eyes at the time. Scott just goofed and is covering his butt now.

At the same time, how do we know that enhancements aren't fashioable ala Cyberpunk?? Remember that William Gibson was just becoming recognized around this time. His idea was that it would become a fashion statement to have cyber-enhancements instead of natural limbs.

Perhaps having genetically enhanced parts is a fashion statement in the unexplored undercurrents of the story. It was Tyrell himself that suggested this possibility.

There is also quite a bit of the novel that is not explored in the film.


Nope...it was just meant to be subtle hint for those paying attention and watching the movie over and over again like many of us have :shock:
Image
<<

Masao

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 232

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:54 am

Post Wed Mar 29, 2006 11:49 pm

"Just please don't tell us you know more than those that have actually talked to the sources."

That is an interesting and unrelated point but it bears further exploration.

I am reminded of two topics:

One a little research I personally did and the second a chance moment in a field.

The first: I am working on a model. This model is of a motorcycle that was in a TV show. I was doing all the reading I could could on the subject and finally found research previously done. I was happy to have actually found some information. But, as I read, it made no sense. The researcher had interviewed the builder of the actual bike. He was told a whole story about how the bike was acquired and that it was a special model and all the pertinent details.

There was just one tiny flaw. The original builder's story doesn't match the photos of the bike. He got it WRONG. It was the wrong model as well as the wrong manufacturer.

The second: By now we have all heard the story of how all of the models of 2001: a space odyssey were "Totally Destroyed" after the filming of the movie. It was an absolute fact that NOTHING survived the destruction. Yet ,years later, lying in a field was the space station plain as day. Yes it was severely damaged but it still existed and could at that time have been repaired. There are even pics on the web showing that it had infact survived.

It is nice to be able to cite "experts" but it is a fact of nature that people simply forget what really happened.
<<

Leon Corporation

User avatar

Rep Detector Handler
Rep Detector Handler

Posts: 342

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:56 pm

Post Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:37 am

I see no reason not to believe it. It is in full alignment with Scott's original intent to suggest that Deckard is a rep. And even if it was a screw-up, damn, what a lucky accident it was!

Masao, I'm curious, what motivates you not to believe in any of this? Do you know something we don't?
Image
Leon Corporation Employee
<<

Masao

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 232

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:54 am

Post Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:46 am

Well, like all things controversial, the topic can get old, tired, and stale.

Using a book about the movie, written years afterward, to promote some point of view only adds to the confusion. It was afterall just a movie.

I understand that for some Sammon is some kind of Neo-moses and his word is sacrosanct, but really.

If we are to enjoy an exploration into the fanciful, lets do it with open minds and not religious ferver.

I have made some of the most original postulates I could think of only to be answered, not by original ideas, but by 'Read the Sammon bible' kind of thinking.

How can we enjoy a sequel if we don't allow the story room to grow?

"You taken a fun little project and made it into a monumental waste of time!" William Shatner ;)
<<

Masao

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 232

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:54 am

Post Thu Mar 30, 2006 10:39 pm

In all honesty, considering all that has decided; if a sequel rather than a remake were to be made, Deckard would almost have to be a Replicant.

This would solve the many problems in the new film such as replacing Ford.

I would pesonally like to see Holden brought back just to bring some continuity to the project.

All things considered, making a Deckard a Repicant is now a necessity -even if Ford were to appear in the film!

Can you magine Ford appearing as the real Deckard?
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Sat Apr 01, 2006 10:21 am

Masao wrote:Well, like all things controversial, the topic can get old, tired, and stale.

Using a book about the movie, written years afterward, to promote some point of view only adds to the confusion. It was afterall just a movie.

I understand that for some Sammon is some kind of Neo-moses and his word is sacrosanct, but really.

If we are to enjoy an exploration into the fanciful, lets do it with open minds and not religious ferver.

I have made some of the most original postulates I could think of only to be answered, not by original ideas, but by 'Read the Sammon bible' kind of thinking.

How can we enjoy a sequel if we don't allow the story room to grow?

"You taken a fun little project and made it into a monumental waste of time!" William Shatner ;)


Good points and I dont disagree with them...but your "disbelief" has as much "religious fervor" as those who do believe. Yet you still have no evidence to back up your opinions. The "eye glow" was done on pupose and even talked about in the American Cinematographer article. The only accidental "eye glow" was by the owl prompting them to change Racheal's line on it being real or not. It was that important of a point to them, and since it wasn't obvious in Deckard's case it was just a subtle clue and not the "zinger" that would have to be at the end of the film in your argument. So far your argument simply does not hold water.
Image
<<

Leon Corporation

User avatar

Rep Detector Handler
Rep Detector Handler

Posts: 342

Joined: Sat Dec 27, 2003 5:56 pm

Post Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:36 am

Indeed, it doesn't hold water but he has a point when he says not to believe everything you read. Ridley isn't going to tell us all of his secrets. For instance, I'm firmly convinced that the unicorn footage seen in the DC is actually "test footage" which I believe they shot to see whether it is possible to do the final scripted/storyboarded scene where Deckard and Rachael drive through dying forest and see a unicorn.
Image
Leon Corporation Employee
<<

Masao

User avatar

Rep Detect Instructor
Rep Detect Instructor

Posts: 232

Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2006 12:54 am

Post Sat Apr 01, 2006 3:18 pm

"So far your argument simply does not hold water."

?????

What arguement?

I made some suggestions. Suggestions are valid if they can work. If they don't work, we drop them and move on.

So far, exploration of the possible seems to be a forbidden subject to some elements. The only arguement I would have is about the closed minded religeous ferver... and that point has already been proven.

The truth is that Blade Runner is a very stylish enjoyable film that is also seriously flawed. All films have flaws. They are made by flawed human beings. We already know this. No stack of books will ever change that. Interviews on videotapes or rip offs will not change it. No dancing around the issues or excuses answer the problems in the self-contained world of the film.

It is what it is. We enjoy it for what it is. Enjoying it for what it may have been is not very rational.

Until a sequel or remake is made or new scenes are added to the film itself, there will be no definitive changes to the story.

And BTW, subtle hint is Gaff's name. Remember Tyrell's eyes never glowed and he was a replicant...or are we going to start arguing with the cast now too?
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:00 am

masao wrote:Well. FN and all the other non related items are meaningless to me.


Well, Paul Sammon (the author of FN) was ON SET and interviewed many of the cast and crew DURING production of the film, so I'd say his book IS related and VERY meaningful to many of us.

masao wrote:The film and the orginal novel are all that is pertinent. This includes any of the author's notes on the subject.


The book and the film differ too much to justify supporting an argument in one with 'evidence' from the other. The movie is 'inspired by' the book not 'translated from' the book.

masao wrote:Remember Tyrell's eyes never glowed and he was a replicant...or are we going to start arguing with the cast now too?


No he wasn't - in an earlier script and storyboard he was, but they dropped the idea in later scripts.
Richard Gunn

We each live in our own realities - who's maintaining yours?

The only thing that you can be 100% sure of, is that you can't be 100% sure of anything.
<<

Deckard BR26354

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1202

Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: UK

Post Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:17 pm

It's interesting to ponder on the intentions of scenes, scripts and storyboards that never made the final cut, but at the end of the day, I feel the whole debate should revolve around the two commercial cuts of the movie and what was actually kept in the final edits...

...and in the end, there is no conclusive 'proof' either way. Deckard is a human. Deckard is a replicant. Deckard is both. You choose.
Richard Gunn

We each live in our own realities - who's maintaining yours?

The only thing that you can be 100% sure of, is that you can't be 100% sure of anything.
<<

Centauro

User avatar

Blade Runner
Blade Runner

Posts: 729

Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 6:00 pm

Location: Bogota, DC [CO]

Post Wed Apr 05, 2006 3:04 am

Masao wrote:we have all heard the story of how all of the models of 2001: a space odyssey were "Totally Destroyed" after the filming of the movie. It was an absolute fact that NOTHING survived the destruction. Yet ,years later, lying in a field was the space station plain as day. Yes it was severely damaged but it still existed and could at that time have been repaired. There are even pics on the web showing that it had infact survived.


Do you have a link for that, please?
-------------------------------------------------------------- Revel In Your Time --------------------------------------------------------------

Image
<<

ridleynoir

User avatar

Veteran Blade Runner
Veteran Blade Runner

Posts: 1335

Joined: Wed Mar 13, 2002 6:00 pm

Location: Rochester NY

Post Thu Apr 06, 2006 2:13 pm

It is true that many "mistakes" in films take on a life of their own by influencing debate like this. It is true in all art forms for that matter that mistakes, whether known by the artist or not instill a human eliment and even tie to the subconcious more than something clean, perfect and totaly intentional. Maybe that is why so many seem to hate CGI. I myself like the ambiguity of the question behind Deckards human or rep status and even think there is more irony in him being human. The best way to look at the final product is which way makes us question our "humanity" the most. Maybe it is best to be left unanswered. Otherwise we might not analyze the film and ourselves to the same degree when given a final answer.
Image
PreviousNext

Return to Deckard - Human or Replicant?

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest

cron