Page 1 of 2

Scott on who doesn't get Deckard is a replicant is a moron!

PostPosted: Sat Dec 15, 2007 6:11 pm
by Phantom
Scott calls anyone who doesn't get Deckard is a replicant a 'moron.'

Yes, Rick Deckard is a replicant. Blade Runner director Ridley Scott finally ends the speculation over his android-hunting cop. ''If you don't get it, you're a moron,'' he says in a new DVD extra.
http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20166134,00.html

:lol:

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 3:02 am
by deleted
God, I love Ridley. :D

PostPosted: Sun Dec 16, 2007 4:47 am
by Phantom
briant at the beggining have top explain what is nexus 6. deckard is not a beginner... this is the first evidence.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:13 pm
by Starkiller
Yeah, Ridley being forthright and blunt, as always. :)

Still, I doubt it'll do anything to alter the opinions of the die-hard "Deckard is Human" advocates.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 3:46 am
by Planta
i think we all know he's a Replicant, but we HOPE he's human. the hope for a better world is at the base of humanity, i guess.

PostPosted: Thu Dec 20, 2007 9:09 am
by Deckard
Personally I think the whole point with Ridley saying Deckard's a Replicant is only from his perspective, and not necessarily that of PKD. Granted Ridley is the Director, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. That simply makes his statement true for his vision of the film and character. It's also a bit funny that it took so long to get a definitive statement for something he seems to feel so strongly about.

I do not believe the reaction to, and significance of Roy's amazing rescue of Deckard at the end would have had the same emotional impact with Deck as a Replicant. Roy needs to put away his disgust for humans and save one to truly show his evolution, valuing any life as his own was slipping away. Reading DADoES makes me think he is not a Replicant.

In the Blade Runner fanfic I am writing here:

http://bladezone.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2470

I will be exploring this theory of my own as the story unfolds further:

The Tyrell corporation realized the dangers of Replicants who, at the end of their lifespan, have come back to Earth to attempt a life here. They can't afford to have Replicants, their products viewed as dangerous to the general population. As a result, the Tyrell Corporation has the police department bought and paid for at the very highest levels. They are aware of Deckard's unicorn dream from either his very own VK test and a question about recurring dreams, or perhaps it was mentioned to Holden at some point in Deckard's Rookiee training under Holden.

Dave Holden, being the good cop he is, would have told Bryant if asked questions about Deckard. Gaff presents the chicken origamy to put doubt into Deckard, worrying that he might not have what it takes to come back as a Blade Runner, that he might have become a "Chicken head" (from the book). The Unicorn origami is presented by Gaff after he leaves Rachel alive, KNOWING that Deckard will flee with her. It is used to plant the suggestion to Deckard that he might be a replicant in order to force his hand and make him flee with Rachel.

This is something the Tyrell Corporation wanted. That way, the corporation can more closely study the behavior patterns of the Nexus 6 line with an unrestricted lifespan and test both the memory implants and Rachel's ability to improvise and adapt to the newfound knowledge that she is indeed a Replicant. It is also a great opportunity for them to gather data on how she interacts with a human on a rapidly growing emotional level.

They are also studying Deckard, struggling with his human thoughts and emotions over the suggestion that he might be one, and how he relates to Rachel. This way, they can either tweak the Nexus 6 line, or create in the Nexus 7 models a more highly evolved emotional matrix, even further blurring the line between human and Replicant.

The entire escape of the Replicants, their journey to Earth, and the involvement of Deckard and the Police was orchestrated by Tyrell to put this plan in motion. In the words of J.F. Sebastian, "He's a genius."

Study history. Dangerous events are allowed to unfold all the time as a catapult to public response and retaliatory actions. What a fantastic experiment the whole film becomes.


It's just an idea, but one I want to play with. If you haven't read the start of my story, I'd love to have you check it out and let me know what you think so far. :D

Sorry, Ridley -- it's up to each individual viewer.

PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2007 11:38 pm
by Largo
Ridley Scott needs to take a cue from Stanley Kubrick and how he invited everyone to interpret 2001 based on their individual viewpoint. Personally, I don't give a rat's patootey what Ridley's interpretation or intentions are concerning Blade Runner. I guess Ridley hasn't heard of the 'death of the author' in literary theory. What is paramount here is the individual's reading of the narrative. For Ridley Scott to call those that disagree with his own interpretation "morons" is just plain rude and arrogant.

PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:38 am
by deleted
And it could have been said in jest. Give Scott some credit. If he really felt that that many fans were morons, he would never had included the Theatrical Cut on the DVD set.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:26 am
by Deckard
I have re-worked the beginnings of my fan fiction if anyone wants to check it out and comment . . . . good/bad or ugly.

Thanks! and Happy New Year. :)

http://bladezone.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=20087#20087

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 10:40 am
by Phantom
the goal is to make a SHORT FILM??

Re: Sorry, Ridley -- it's up to each individual viewer.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 1:21 pm
by Centauro
Largo wrote:Ridley Scott needs to take a cue from Stanley Kubrick and how he invited everyone to interpret 2001 based on their individual viewpoint.


My thoughts exactly.

I DON'T WANT TO BELIEVE

Deck-a-human-ers, unite! :D :D :D

:roll:

PostPosted: Wed Jan 02, 2008 4:19 pm
by Krokodyle
Deckard wrote:Personally I think the whole point with Ridley saying Deckard's a Replicant is only from his perspective, and not necessarily that of PKD. Granted Ridley is the Director, but that doesn't necessarily make it so. That simply makes his statement true for his vision of the film and character.


My thoughts exactly. =D>

I guess it's the fact that you CAN have so many viewpoints/interpretations on the BR film that adds so much to its appeal. From relatively "simple" black & white issues like "is Deckard a replicant or human" to deeper implications delving into the realm of the definition of "human", or at least sentience.

The last videotaped statement I saw of Ridley regarding this issue, he stated something along the lines of "oh, I certainly believe he is"...which, in his defense, shows that HE believes Deckard to be a replicant, nothing more.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 11:54 am
by Masao
Frank Darrabont gets it...but Ridley doesn't!

If Deckard is a Replicant then RS is the moron.

Here's how:

At any time, RS could have chosen to either A) alter Ford's scar, or B) used another actor.

Why is this so important? Using an actor who has a ten-year-old scar on his face is making a statement. Maybe many:"This guy has been around" "He has had years of experience." "He has survived!"

If the scar is false, nothing else can be trusted...including Deckard's eyes!

...And if nothing you see can be trusted, neither can the director!





That is, of course, unless you believe in the Holden Postulate.

:lol:

"The tigers still look fake."[/b]

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 7:22 pm
by deleted
RS is a moron?

Why are you here?

Re: Sorry, Ridley -- it's up to each individual viewer.

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2008 10:28 pm
by Kaneda
Largo wrote:Ridley Scott needs to take a cue from Stanley Kubrick and how he invited everyone to interpret 2001 based on their individual viewpoint. I guess Ridley hasn't heard of the 'death of the author' in literary theory.


Or perhaps he doesn't subscribe to that theory. After all, it is theory, not gospel.

Personally, when regarding film, I always view things from auteur theory. If Steven Spielberg says the mechas at the end of A.I. are not aliens, I'm going to agree with him. I'm not going to say and believe that they're aliens because the film doesn't explicitly say otherwise and completely disregard Spielberg's statement.

As for Darabont, I find it annoying that he imposes his view of what certain scenes mean when the director is the one that stages everything for his own purposes and meaning. I'm sure people would find it ridiculous if I totally reinterpreted scenes between Tom Hanks and Michael Clark Duncan in The Green Mile as suggesting a homosexual relationship when other scenes seem to state that that is anything but the case (like the fact that Hank's character is married).