Let's Clear The Air Once & For All on The Deckard/Replicant Question
RAYNMAN
ma...@ksc15.th.com (Marc Schultz) wrote:
>If you simply read the foreward in the Paul Sammon's Future Noir Book;
>The Making of Blade Runner he covers it right in the forward. Deckard
>is not a replicant according to Paul Sammon who knows Ridley Scott
>personally as well as PKD before he died. End of story.
>Marc
Sorry Marc I just had to reply:
In a Q&A with Sammon & Scott at the end of Future Noir quoted:
Page 391 of FN:
Sammon: But how can Deckard be an android when he's physically
outmatched...
Scott: Deckard was the first android who was the equivalent of being
human-with all our vunerabilities....
------------------------------------------
There's a lot of evidence of Deckard being a Replicant in BRDC
BladeRunner Director's Cut. I did question this up until I saw BRDC,
and read this interview. It seems clear to me now that the Director
of Bladerunner and ScreenWriter wanted Deckard to be a Replicant. I
know it seems tragic in way but I have to say it is an interesting
perspective.
"How can it not know what it is?", Deckard to Tyrell.
Remember this line by Deckard at the Rachel interview: it becomes
quite chilling when you put Deckard in the role of a replicant.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
I have to say that BR is much more compelling a story with Deckard as
a replicant.
raynman
Don't surround yourself with yourself...
James M.
Hello,
Sorry, but this debate will never end! The movie is open for everyone's
interpretation and that's what makes it so much fun. Is Rick a replicant
or not? Make up your own mind. I think this issue is one that keeps the
whole Blade Runner phenemoena going. I mean if Ridley had openly
revealed whether or not Rick is a replicant, a key piece of the Blade
Runner mystique would be gone and we would just file the movie away with
the rest and go on with our lives. Besides, he IS a replicant! :-)
Thanks,
Trancer
Dennis Lodewijks
On Fri, 23 May 1997 01:58:38 GMT, Marc Schultz <ma...@ksc15.th.com> wrote:
>If you simply read the foreward in the Paul Sammon's Future Noir Book;
>The Making of Blade Runner he covers it right in the forward. Deckard
>is not a replicant according to Paul Sammon who knows Ridley Scott
>personally as well as PKD before he died. End of story.
But according to Paul Sammon again he definately is one in the directors cut.
And the book is great yes, and it reveils many things, but wether or not
Deckard is a replicant is a matter of perceiving the film, so using Sammon
's vision as a definive answer is as silly as using for instance my own
vision (Yes, replicant) for a definitive answer.
And Philip K Dick has nothing to do with the filmversion wihch is extremely
lossely based on the book.
So, not end of Story, the ending of this discussion is as open as the film
itself.
Greetings,
Dennis Lodewijks
Lukas Mariman
> >If you simply read the foreward in the Paul Sammon's Future Noir Book;
> >The Making of Blade Runner he covers it right in the forward. Deckard
> >is not a replicant according to Paul Sammon who knows Ridley Scott
> >personally as well as PKD before he died. End of story.
>
> But according to Paul Sammon again he definately is one in the directors
cut.
>
What's more (and ALSO in Future Noir), it is mentioned that at least once,
Scott has stated in interviews (with P. Sammon) that as far as he was
concerned, Deckard IS a replicant. That's a pretty straightforward
statement, isn't it?
(this is one of those threads that will never die, but who cares, it keeps
this NG alive and kicking :-)
murray
"James M." <Tran...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>Hello,
>Thanks,
>Trancer
Hi Trancer,
I have to agree. I've said before on this ng that the uncertainty of
this issue in the mind of the viewer gives the film all sorts of
resonance. Deckard is uncertain - the viewer is uncertain.
And just because Scott intended Deckard to be seen as a replicant
doesn't mean we must neccessarily interpret as so. In true "reader
response theory" - it's up to us to decide. That doesn't mean we
ignore what Scott says about the movie - it is relevant - just not
determinative.
He left the question far to open in the movie to be decided by
anything he says afterwards. What if he's not telling the truth? (I
think he is - I'm just saying that what an artist says about his work
after the creative event, is not neccessarily the be-all and end-all
of the subject. It's far better to come to your own conclusion).
The uncertainty surrounding this issue is IMO a lot to do with its
greatness - and also probably its major flaw. All art is imperfect and
it is often the flaws that end up being most revealing.
Murray
mur...@pro-ma.co.uk
Remove ".nospam" from my address to reply by email.
James M.
John Constantine wrote:
>
> James M. <Tran...@ix.netcom.com> writes with great enthusiasm and
> aplomb...
>
> : I mean if Ridley had openly
> : revealed whether or not Rick is a replicant, a key piece of the Blade
> : Runner mystique would be gone and we would just file the movie away with
> : the rest and go on with our lives.
>
>
> Scott did openly declare that Deckard was a Skinjob in Future Noir...
Hello,
I meant if he had openly revealed it in the movie.
Thanks,
Trancer
HELLBLAZER
Aw, I knew that. Truth be told, the film works much, much better than if
Scott had openly reavealed (in the movie) anything more than he did... even
in the Director's Cut.
Constantine, in reply to;