BR SE DVD Conundrum
Womb Raider
Let's say (for sake of starting an argument here) that the 20th
Anniversary Edition DVD of BR has what Ridley says is the final
definitive edition.
And in that version Deckard is clearly a Rep. Who would you feel? This
question applies to both sides of the fence. Would those that feel deck
is a human feel betrayed or just choose to ignore this "latest"
version? and would deck a reps find the obvious denotation of deck a
rep too obvious?
Just thinking here late at night, it's the wine...that's it...the
wine...
WR
Lukas Mariman
"Womb Raider" <wombr...@phonyaddress.com> schreef in bericht
news:270120020205428094%wombr...@phonyaddress.com...
>
>
> Let's say (for sake of starting an argument here) that the 20th
> Anniversary Edition DVD of BR has what Ridley says is the final
> definitive edition.
It had better be - otherwise, if we're going to have a new "definitive
director's cut every 10 years, BR will become some kind of a running
joke. :-)
> And in that version Deckard is clearly a Rep. Who would you feel? This
> question applies to both sides of the fence. Would those that feel
deck
> is a human feel betrayed or just choose to ignore this "latest"
> version? and would deck a reps find the obvious denotation of deck a
> rep too obvious?
As far as I, as a militant deck-a-repper, am concerned, Deckard has
*always*
clearly been a replicant. (At least, ever since the DC came out.)
To me, the unicorn combo and the glowing eyes *are* definite clues.
To who still think Deckard is human have been "ignoring the latest
version" for about 10 years now already. :-p
Evil Sponge
"Womb Raider" <wombr...@phonyaddress.com> wrote in message
news:270120020205428094%wombr...@phonyaddress.com...
>
>
> Let's say (for sake of starting an argument here) that the 20th
> Anniversary Edition DVD of BR has what Ridley says is the final
> definitive edition.
>
> And in that version Deckard is clearly a Rep. Who would you feel?
Sandra Bullock, preferably.
This
> question applies to both sides of the fence. Would those that feel deck
> is a human feel betrayed or just choose to ignore this "latest"
> version? and would deck a reps find the obvious denotation of deck a
> rep too obvious?
>
> Just thinking here late at night, it's the wine...that's it...the
> wine...
>
> WR
I really hope that RS doesn't try and make Deck a definite rep... the
ambiguity of that issue is one of my favourite aspects of the film. I don't
think Ridley is stupid enough to do that, and also I think he likes issues
like that to be obscure and available only to the intellectual arty types
who notice these things (or possibly the obsessive fans who make it their
business to know everything). I wouldn't choose to ignore the new version, I
would simply watch it, enjoying the new improved audio visual quality, but
always treasure the integrity of the old DC.
Netrunner
>Let's say (for sake of starting an argument here) that the 20th
>Anniversary Edition DVD of BR has what Ridley says is the final
>definitive edition.
Of course it is.
>And in that version Deckard is clearly a Rep. Who would you feel?
Who I feel has nothing to do with Deckard, I can assure you!
> This
>question applies to both sides of the fence. Would those that feel deck
>is a human feel betrayed or just choose to ignore this "latest"
>version? and would deck a reps find the obvious denotation of deck a
>rep too obvious?
Ridley will do as he does. The BR:SE will be the final version, but
you are ignoring the likelihood that the OV will be on the DVD set as
well. It seems Scott is now even telling people Deckard is a
Replicant without even being asked. (Something like, "So, was Black
Hawk Down based on real events?" "Yes, Deckard is definitely a
Replicant." ;-)
Whether the clues are there or not is still a matter of choice in the
DC. One reason a lot of people prefer to write them off to other
(reasonable) explanations is that a lot of people simply disagree with
Scott's choice. For instance, to me, it ruins the importance of the
questions if Roy just saves another machine and two machines run off
together - so what?
But Scott must do what he believes is right, even if that means making
Dec-a-Rep more obvious, so I'll just be accepting the new version as
his vision, whether I agree with it or not.
Netrunner.
-- -------------------------------------------
The newsgroup website is www.BRmovie.com
Home of the Blade Runner FAQ, Character Profiles,
Fan Fiction, Related books/movies and much more!
----------------------------------------------
Niclas Hermansson
Womb Raider <wombr...@phonyaddress.com> wrote in message
news:270120020205428094%wombr...@phonyaddress.com...
>
>
> Anniversary Edition DVD of BR has what Ridley says is the final
> definitive edition.
>
> And in that version Deckard is clearly a Rep. Who would you feel? This
> question applies to both sides of the fence. Would those that feel deck
> is a human feel betrayed or just choose to ignore this "latest"
> version? and would deck a reps find the obvious denotation of deck a
> rep too obvious?
I'm probably a somewhat rare kind of BR fan. I watched the Original version
for the first time in the mid-80s when I was 12-13 years old and "grew up"
with a human Deck. Nevertheless, when the DC came I embraced the Deck-a-rep
concept immediately. Why? Well, it's not a question of "evidence" for me,
but a question of feelings. I pity this poor bastard in this cruel world,
and the fact that he's been deceived beyond reality (*his* reality, that is)
emphasizes the tragedy for me. It's weird, but it's easier for me to
identify with Deck as a rep. I guess Blade Runner is my own V-K test.
OK, maybe I'm just a sentimental sissy, but that's my point of view anyway.
For me, Deckard will always be a replicant. So, the reinforcements have
arrived, Lukas, but the quality of your new troops may be questionable! ;-)
Still, I don't like to get things written on my nose. I certainly hope Scott
won't overdo the d-a-r issue. The amibiguity renders the movie interesting
depths and I think it might be crucial for the survival of the fandom.
Whatta h*ll should we discuss in here otherwise? :-D
> Just thinking here late at night, it's the wine...that's it...the
> wine...
I'd say keep on opening those bottles - it's good for the newsgroup! :-)
Lukas Mariman
"Niclas Hermansson" <rep...@philipkdick.com> schreef in bericht
news:kpU48.6719$O5.1...@nntpserver.swip.net...
Woohooh! Excellent!
> Still, I don't like to get things written on my nose. I certainly hope
Scott
> won't overdo the d-a-r issue. The amibiguity renders the movie
interesting
> depths and I think it might be crucial for the survival of the fandom.
> Whatta h*ll should we discuss in here otherwise? :-D
Well, we could always discuss the weather... Nah, maybe not. ;-)
> > Just thinking here late at night, it's the wine...that's it...the
> > wine...
>
> I'd say keep on opening those bottles - it's good for the newsgroup!
:-)
Yes - more wine! More wine!
POD {铱觹
"Womb Raider" <wombr...@phonyaddress.com> wrote in message
news:270120020205428094%wombr...@phonyaddress.com...
>
>
I can't see how anyone could argue against the fact these days. He wasn't a
rep in the OV, he was a rep in the DC. In the next version I expect to see
Gaff turn away at the end, but is then unable to open his hand ;-)
Lukas Mariman
"POD {铱觹" <flam...@burnbabyburn.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:a3167p$8b5$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk...
I know we've been through this many times before, but I still want to
comment on this prevalent "no in the OV, yes in the DC" notion. I just
don't agree with this. Deckard was *always* meant to be a replicant in
BR, even in the OV. It just wasn't that clear; indeed, it was almost,
but not quite, nonexistent after the dream was cut from it.
The only reason it's more clear in the DC is because the unicorn dream
was reinserted - still leaving Deck's *glowing eyes* and an enigmatic
piece of origami at the end.
...
This feels awfully much like a deck-a-rep discussion. :)
Lukas Mariman
"Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> schreef in bericht
news:3c541f10$0$33512$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
That got a bit mixed-up. Let me rephrase that:
What I meant to say was: "The cutting of the uni dream in the OV still
left Deck's *glowing eyes* and an enigmatic piece of origami at the end.
Patrick Meaney
> comment on this prevalent "no in the OV, yes in the DC" notion. I just
> don't agree with this. Deckard was *always* meant to be a replicant in
> BR, even in the OV. It just wasn't that clear; indeed, it was almost,
> but not quite, nonexistent after the dream was cut from it.
>
Maybe meant by Ridley, but others on the film, including Ford who portrayed him, saw
him as human. In a collaborative medium, there is no one definitive vision. In the DC
he's clearly intended to be a rep, but in the OV, the glowing eyes is incidental, and
the unicorn holds no meaning, other than to say that Gaff was there.
--
Patrick
"We are not retreating - we are advancing in another Direction." - General Douglas
MacArthur
Netrunner
>I'm probably a somewhat rare kind of BR fan. I watched the Original version
>for the first time in the mid-80s when I was 12-13 years old and "grew up"
>with a human Deck. Nevertheless, when the DC came I embraced the Deck-a-rep
>concept immediately. Why? Well, it's not a question of "evidence" for me,
>but a question of feelings. I pity this poor bastard in this cruel world,
>and the fact that he's been deceived beyond reality (*his* reality, that is)
>emphasizes the tragedy for me. It's weird, but it's easier for me to
>identify with Deck as a rep. I guess Blade Runner is my own V-K test.
I understand your POV and am not going to argue against it, (well not
today anyway!) One statement interested me - you pity Deckard because
he has been so deceived in this cruel world. That certainly applies
if he is a Rep and figures it out. However, it applies just as much
to if he is a Human and has now realised that everyone has been lying
about the Reps - that they are just the same as him, that they are not
just machines, that they do have emotions and can develop empathy,
that what he suspected already, but now has confirmed - that killing
them is murder, not simple termination of a faulty product. He has
been a murderer and has been lied to consistently. He can't fix what
he has done, but he can turn his back on it and walk away. To me,
Deckard being human seems to highlight that his life has been even
more of a lie than if he were a Rep.
Netrunner.
Netrunner
>I know we've been through this many times before, but I still want to
>comment on this prevalent "no in the OV, yes in the DC" notion. I just
>don't agree with this. Deckard was *always* meant to be a replicant in
>BR, even in the OV. It just wasn't that clear; indeed, it was almost,
>but not quite, nonexistent after the dream was cut from it.
In this aspect, I agree with Lukas. I understand why people believe
the different variations of Deckard's nature across the different
versions, but essentially, the same intention was behind his nature
and the dream sequence getting put back in only highlights that
intention.
Now as much as some people will share their disbelief that anyone
could still conceive of Deckard being Human, I will continue to do so
quite happily as there is a perfectly reasonable reality where the
clues that are presented do not mean Deck-a-Rep at all, they only make
you consider the possibility and the question of whether there is
really any difference. No, this isn't some vague "alternative", it
doesn't require any effort or desperate fitting of facts to a
different reality, it is all perfectly reasonable. To me, this has
always been my POV and although I have carefully considered the other
POVs and their evidence, I am not swayed at all. Even if Scott had
Gaff say, "You are a Rep", there are sufficient lies and alterations
of reality within the film, that this would not actually be proof of
anything.
Lukas Mariman
"Patrick Meaney" <patrick...@verizon.net> schreef in bericht
news:FZV48.2184$0V6...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> > I know we've been through this many times before, but I still want
to
> > comment on this prevalent "no in the OV, yes in the DC" notion. I
just
> > don't agree with this. Deckard was *always* meant to be a replicant
in
> > BR, even in the OV. It just wasn't that clear; indeed, it was
almost,
> > but not quite, nonexistent after the dream was cut from it.
> >
>
> Maybe meant by Ridley, but others on the film, including Ford who
portrayed him, saw
> him as human. In a collaborative medium, there is no one definitive
vision.
Why does nobody dispute the director's vision in, say, a Stanley Kubrick
film, or an Orson Welles film, but somehow in BR it's suddenly a
different situation? Why won't people allow Ridley Scott to have his
movie the way he wants?
> In the DC
> he's clearly intended to be a rep, but in the OV, the glowing eyes is
incidental,
Why? It wasn't incidental with any of the [other] reps, now was it?
> and
> the unicorn holds no meaning, other than to say that Gaff was there.
True, unfortunately, since the dream wasn't there anymore to provide us
any connection.
Patrick Meaney
> film, or an Orson Welles film, but somehow in BR it's suddenly a
> different situation? Why won't people allow Ridley Scott to have his
> movie the way he wants
>
When looking at the OV, there's only one thing in the film that could support the idea
that Deckard is a replicant: The glowing eyes, and I don't think that's enough to
overturn everything else that we know about the character. With the OV, I'm not
looking at the movie the way Ridley wants it, he clearly wants Deck a rep, I'm looking
at what's there, and his vision wasn't completely communicated. The DC is his vision,
and Deck is a rep, the OV is different, and Deck is not a rep.
Patrick
Niclas Hermansson
Netrunner <Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote in message
news:97a85u0id02n17sgi...@4ax.com...
That's a good point and I basically agree. I'd like to expound my POV,
though:
- In the OV *Deckard* is deceived. *Deckard* realises that he pity
automatons.
- In the DC *we* are deceived. *We* realise that we pity automatons. (This
does of course relate to Roy & c:o in the OV too, but not to the same
degree. The impact on the viewer is more severe if the protagonist is
dehumanised, no doubt. At least it's more severe on me.)
As I see it, it's a matter of narrative techniques: to watch through
Deckard's eyes or our own. I think both of these perspectives have their
advantages, but I prefer the "meta-cinematic" perspective myself.
Lukas Mariman
> > Why does nobody dispute the director's vision in, say, a Stanley
Kubrick
> > film, or an Orson Welles film, but somehow in BR it's suddenly a
> > different situation? Why won't people allow Ridley Scott to have his
> > movie the way he wants
> >
> > Why? It wasn't incidental with any of the [other] reps, now was it?
>
> When looking at the OV, there's only one thing in the film that could
support the idea
> that Deckard is a replicant: The glowing eyes, and I don't think
that's enough to
> overturn everything else that we know about the character.
But we know next to nothing about him. What do we know about Deckard
anyway? What or how much "overturning" is there going on anyway?
> With the OV, I'm not
> looking at the movie the way Ridley wants it, he clearly wants Deck a
rep, I'm looking
> at what's there, and his vision wasn't completely communicated.
Well, it just wasn't spelt out for us. Which is what a subtext is
supposed to be about. I guess. I think. I respect the deck-a-human POV,
but *to me* the unicorn and the glowing eyes are as (un)subtle as you
can get short of someone actually stating "Gosh, Deckard is a replicant!
Didn't you know?", or the proverbial dancing bears holding up neon
signs. :-)
> The DC is his vision, and Deck is a rep, the OV is different, and Deck
is not a rep.
We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Netrunner
>> > I know we've been through this many times before, but I still want
>to
>> > comment on this prevalent "no in the OV, yes in the DC" notion. I
>just
>> > don't agree with this. Deckard was *always* meant to be a replicant
>in
>> > BR, even in the OV. It just wasn't that clear; indeed, it was
>almost,
>> > but not quite, nonexistent after the dream was cut from it.
>> >
>>
>> Maybe meant by Ridley, but others on the film, including Ford who
>portrayed him, saw
>> him as human. In a collaborative medium, there is no one definitive
>vision.
>
>Why does nobody dispute the director's vision in, say, a Stanley Kubrick
>film, or an Orson Welles film, but somehow in BR it's suddenly a
>different situation? Why won't people allow Ridley Scott to have his
>movie the way he wants?
You must have missed the discussion on 2001 then, or the other times
last year I was slagging off Kubrick. There is plenty of discussion
about some of Orson Welles' films, just not here. Ridley Scott can do
whatever he likes with his film, but he cannot dictate what people see
when they watch it.
>> In the DC
>> he's clearly intended to be a rep, but in the OV, the glowing eyes is
>incidental,
>
>Why? It wasn't incidental with any of the [other] reps, now was it?
To a large extent is only there if you look for it. And with Leon and
Rachael when they're being V-K'd, they have a light shining into their
eyes. The owl's eyes reflected light naturally so Rachael's line was
changed to take advantage of it. Deckard's glow is still easy to
miss. The fact that Scott put something in the film doesn't mean we
have to accept what his intention was.
Now have a quick look at the FAQ. I am sure you have a copy handy.
See those excerpts from the interviews he did at the time? All that
"perhaps" and "maybe" type of language? Where Scott seemed to be
saying what had been the intention of at least one of the writer's
that it was something that he wanted to be *suggested* in the film -
mainly so people would think about it. In my view, he has devalued
his own creation by answering his own question. On top of which, some
of the other main creative people in the film still disagree with him.
POD {铱觹
"Lukas Mariman" <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3c541f10$0$33512$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
> I know we've been through this many times before, but I still want to
> comment on this prevalent "no in the OV, yes in the DC" notion. I just
> don't agree with this. Deckard was *always* meant to be a replicant in
> BR, even in the OV. It just wasn't that clear; indeed, it was almost,
> but not quite, nonexistent after the dream was cut from it.
>
> The only reason it's more clear in the DC is because the unicorn dream
> was reinserted - still leaving Deck's *glowing eyes* and an enigmatic
> piece of origami at the end.
The thing about the glowing eyes, is that the one shot in which Deck has
them is when Rachel is in shot, and they are more pronounced on her, than
him. So you can be forgiven that the effect was a bye product of that.
So to claim that he was a rep in the OV is unjustified on the evidence
present, sure Ridley may have always intended it, but without the Unicorn
evidence the other hints evaporate like morning mist.
POD {铱觹
> What I meant to say was: "The cutting of the uni dream in the OV still
> left Deck's *glowing eyes* and an enigmatic piece of origami at the end.
>
Without the Unicorn sequence, all the foil version tell us, is what is
repeated in the VO, that Gaff had been there and let her live. As to the
significance of the animal, in relation to the chicken and the "boner" match
man, well, who knows, I always thought it was Gaff's way of calling Deck a
dreamer, living in a fantasy world.
Lukas Mariman
"Netrunner" <Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> schreef in bericht
news:8io85ucgsukld0u6t...@4ax.com...
Yes, I understand that, but my point was: does anybody know or care what
anyone other than Kubricks or Welles' vision concerning their respective
movies was? Does anyone take *their* leading actors or crew members into
account? I'm sure we can find at least *someone* from the cast or crew
of, say, "2001" who disagreed at one point or another, or still does,
with Kubrick's POV on his movie. Does that somehow, in any way, lessen
or invalidate his own vision as the director of his movie(s)?
> >> In the DC
> >> he's clearly intended to be a rep, but in the OV, the glowing eyes
is
> >incidental,
> >
> >Why? It wasn't incidental with any of the [other] reps, now was it?
>
> To a large extent is only there if you look for it. And with Leon and
> Rachael when they're being V-K'd, they have a light shining into their
> eyes. The owl's eyes reflected light naturally so Rachael's line was
> changed to take advantage of it. Deckard's glow is still easy to
> miss. The fact that Scott put something in the film doesn't mean we
> have to accept what his intention was.
>
> Now have a quick look at the FAQ. I am sure you have a copy handy.
I never read FAQs, you know that. ;-)
> See those excerpts from the interviews he did at the time? All that
> "perhaps" and "maybe" type of language?
Who knows - maybe he was just being cautious in his phrasing.
> Where Scott seemed to be
> saying what had been the intention of at least one of the writer's
> that it was something that he wanted to be *suggested* in the film -
> mainly so people would think about it. In my view, he has devalued
> his own creation by answering his own question. On top of which, some
> of the other main creative people in the film still disagree with him.
Yes... Really annoying it is, too. It must be a religion kind of thing.
Patrick Meaney
> supposed to be about. I guess. I think. I respect the deck-a-human POV,
> but *to me* the unicorn and the glowing eyes are as (un)subtle as you
> can get short of someone actually stating "Gosh, Deckard is a replicant!
> Didn't you know?", or the proverbial dancing bears holding up neon
> signs. :-)
>
In the DC, it is conclusive evidence he's a rep, but in the OV, it doesn't do anything
related to being a rep. I think it says something more like to try and leave with her
is a fantasy.
> We'll have to agree to disagree on that.
>
Yeah, this is just going in circles. So end it now.
--
Patrick
Netrunner
>> >Why does nobody dispute the director's vision in, say, a Stanley
>Kubrick
>> >film, or an Orson Welles film, but somehow in BR it's suddenly a
>> >different situation? Why won't people allow Ridley Scott to have his
>> >movie the way he wants?
>>
>> You must have missed the discussion on 2001 then, or the other times
>> last year I was slagging off Kubrick. There is plenty of discussion
>> about some of Orson Welles' films, just not here. Ridley Scott can do
>> whatever he likes with his film, but he cannot dictate what people see
>> when they watch it.
>
>Yes, I understand that, but my point was: does anybody know or care what
>anyone other than Kubricks or Welles' vision concerning their respective
>movies was? Does anyone take *their* leading actors or crew members into
>account? I'm sure we can find at least *someone* from the cast or crew
>of, say, "2001" who disagreed at one point or another, or still does,
>with Kubrick's POV on his movie. Does that somehow, in any way, lessen
>or invalidate his own vision as the director of his movie(s)?
Well, I already suggested that people do not necessarily see in 2001
what the director intended (and there were disagreements about that on
set, but Kubrick usually started by geting people to see his vision).
And yes, director's choices are criticized all the time. Thing is,
such big questions doen't come up in most movies. I don't have any
issues with any of Scott's other movies for instance. In Blade
Runner, a number of the main people making the film, both cast and
crew were in complete disagreement with Scott about this issue. When
that includes what the scriptwriters were trying to write, it is of
some significance. Now of course, ultimately, a film should be the
vision of the director and I don't dispute that Blade Runner is a
brilliant creation and Scott can do and make whatever he wants in it.
And one of the problems he had was being too flexible with crew at the
beginning. But whatever he does, it is still my right as an
individual to disagree with his choice.
Evil Sponge
This is a great argument... and I really like it... but the same is true if
he's a Rep. He's still been decieved, he's still a killer, and he is still
broken and full of remorse.
Evil Sponge
>
> Why does nobody dispute the director's vision in, say, a Stanley Kubrick
> film, or an Orson Welles film, but somehow in BR it's suddenly a
> different situation? Why won't people allow Ridley Scott to have his
> movie the way he wants?
>
I would disagree with Kubrick if he ever said anything about his films that
I disagreed with.... or even anything about his films at all :o) I maintain
that a work of art, once complete, is completely detached from its author,
and so is completely open to interpretation. There were a lot of "complete"s
in that sentence.
Evil Sponge
"Patrick Meaney" <patrick...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:TO%48.2285$0V6...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> In the DC, it is conclusive evidence he's a rep, but in the OV, it doesn't
do anything
> related to being a rep. I think it says something more like to try and
leave with her
> is a fantasy.
>
There's still evidence in the OV to suggest that he's a rep.... it's
ambiguous, like the DC. The DC suggests the issue a little more obviously
and a little more poetically, however.
Mellorman
>
> the proverbial dancing bears holding up neon
> signs. :-)
>
Apparently that scene was removed before release... Scott felt it was out of
keeping with the rest of the film... ;-)
Rob
Evil Sponge
"Mellorman" <rj.m...@ne.spam.pas.virgin.net> wrote in message
news:aL858.40933$Ph2.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Lukas Mariman
"Mellorman" <rj.m...@ne.spam.pas.virgin.net> schreef in bericht
news:aL858.40933$Ph2.6...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
Yessiree, they went out together with the brass band and the
cheerleaders.
Lukas Mariman
NÃ ! I don't wanna!
...
Oh, allright then.
Lukas Mariman
"Evil Sponge" <evil....@ntlworld.com> schreef in bericht
news:vQ958.40462$ka7.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
You really mean: inserting a scene with dancing bears? LOL
Lukas Mariman
I suppose so. there is no equivalent of the deck-a-rep discussion, as
far as I know. Or is there? Send your answers to...
> I don't have any
> issues with any of Scott's other movies for instance. In Blade
> Runner, a number of the main people making the film, both cast and
> crew were in complete disagreement with Scott about this issue. When
> that includes what the scriptwriters were trying to write, it is of
> some significance. Now of course, ultimately, a film should be the
> vision of the director and I don't dispute that Blade Runner is a
> brilliant creation and Scott can do and make whatever he wants in it.
> And one of the problems he had was being too flexible with crew at the
> beginning. But whatever he does, it is still my right as an
> individual to disagree with his choice.
Fair enough. Well, I've had my (usual) say on the matter for now... :-)
Mellorman
"Evil Sponge" <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:vQ958.40462$ka7.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com...
>
> >
> > Apparently that scene was removed before release... Scott felt it was
out
> of
> > keeping with the rest of the film... ;-)
> >
> > Rob
> >
> >
> I, for one, hope to see it reinstated in the new DC
>
>
Absolutely! And they should re-instate all the musical numbers... who could
forget Deckard's dance routine during "If I was a Replicant (Ya ha deedle
deedle, bubba bubba deedle deedle dum)"...
Mellorman
>
> > And yes, director's choices are criticized all the time. Thing is,
> > such big questions doen't come up in most movies.
>
> I suppose so. there is no equivalent of the deck-a-rep discussion, as
> far as I know. Or is there? Send your answers to...
>
Well, there's a bit of controversy about Sleepy Hollow. Some of the fans
maintain that the film's central character has a somewhat 'other worldly'
quality and that this is due to the large quantity of hard drugs and alcohol
he's consumed... they're calling it the Depp-a-Wreck debate... [boom boom!]
Lukas Mariman
LOL! Hey, that might work.
How about "Blade Runner on Ice"?
Lukas Mariman
LOL
Well, it *is* Johnny Repp, uhm - Depp, after all.
Evil Sponge
Marginally worse than "Blade Runner on crack"
Evil Sponge
ROFL
Kara and/or Dmitrc Burnes
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Let's say (for sake of starting an argument here) that the 20th
>>Anniversary Edition DVD of BR has what Ridley says is the final
>>definitive edition.
>
>>And in that version Deckard is clearly a Rep. Who would you feel?
>
Is this testing whether I'm a replicant or lesbian??????
Evil Sponge
"Kara and/or Dmitrc Burnes" <dibu...@kricket.net> wrote in message
news:gvkb5usq5islv758e...@4ax.com...
lol
wamccabe
oddities were supposed to be "deliberately ambiguous" and this was supposed
to "add to the mystique" or something of the sort. It even made it to a few
reviews. Other people called things "continuity errors" or just screw-ups.
Now it seems we could get an official version in which one interpretation is
given for everything and any deviation from that is a mistake. Is this movie
just Scott's vision or something much more diverse? Will there only be two
unicorns in the final cut? Will we get a point-by-point plan explaining why
Deck is a rep? Will Harrison Ford even get the chance to say what he was
told / thought at the time? Do we want answers or greater mysteries?
"Womb Raider" <wombr...@phonyaddress.com> wrote in message
news:270120020205428094%wombr...@phonyaddress.com...
>
>
> Let's say (for sake of starting an argument here) that the 20th
> Anniversary Edition DVD of BR has what Ridley says is the final
> definitive edition.
>
> And in that version Deckard is clearly a Rep. Who would you feel? This
> question applies to both sides of the fence. Would those that feel deck
> is a human feel betrayed or just choose to ignore this "latest"
> version? and would deck a reps find the obvious denotation of deck a
> rep too obvious?
>
> Just thinking here late at night, it's the wine...that's it...the
> wine...
>
> WR
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.306 / Virus Database: 166 - Release Date: 04/12/2001
Womb Raider
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
> The fact that Scott put something in the film doesn't mean we
> have to accept what his intention was.
I could agree with you there and say that Darth Vader is the good guy,
cause that's the way I see it. He's got this nice organized control of
the galaxy going and here come these ragtag rebels mucking around with
it.
Besides, really what did he do that was so bad aside from blowing up
Alderan? Vader's the good guy, it's obvious..
And Citizen Kane didn't really die, he just went into seclusion.
WR
Womb Raider
<rep...@philipkdick.com> wrote:
> I pity this poor bastard in this cruel world,
> and the fact that he's been deceived beyond reality (*his* reality, that is)
> emphasizes the tragedy for me. It's weird, but it's easier for me to
> identify with Deck as a rep.
Run out right now and rent/buy or borrow the film "Ghost in the Shell"
:)
WR
Womb Raider
Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > And in that version Deckard is clearly a Rep. Who would you feel?
>
> Sandra Bullock, preferably.
Heheh. I have two hands. Sandra and either Catherine Zeta Jones or
Roselyn Sanchez....cold shower...so cold....so very cold...
WR
Womb Raider
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
> Even if Scott had
> Gaff say, "You are a Rep", there are sufficient lies and alterations
> of reality within the film, that this would not actually be proof of
> anything.
>
> Netrunner.
I think I see the classic symptoms of denial here :)
WR
Womb Raider
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
> "So, was Black
> Hawk Down based on real events?" "Yes, Deckard is definitely a
> Replicant."
That should be the official BR Joke-Of-The-Month.
> For instance, to me, it ruins the importance of the
> questions if Roy just saves another machine and two machines run off
> together - so what?
I completely disagree and think the opposite is true. But enough of
that argument :)
WR
Womb Raider
<lukas....@skynet.be> wrote:
> As far as I, as a militant deck-a-repper, am concerned, Deckard has
> *always*
> clearly been a replicant. (At least, ever since the DC came out.)
>
> To me, the unicorn combo and the glowing eyes *are* definite clues.
Same here. But, I thought I'd just stir up the pot a bit anyway.
WR
Womb Raider
<flam...@burnbabyburn.co.uk> wrote:
> The thing about the glowing eyes, is that the one shot in which Deck has
> them is when Rachel is in shot, and they are more pronounced on her, than
> him. So you can be forgiven that the effect was a bye product of that.
Wasn't that intentional though? His glowing eyes? I'm sure I read about
that in the bible.
WR
Womb Raider
<lukas....@skynet.be> wrote:
> > I, for one, hope to see it reinstated in the new DC
>
> You really mean: inserting a scene with dancing bears? LOL
I just hope they put back in the Intercontinental Spinner Race
sequence. I still feel that that deleted scene where Deckard is making
his own Rep out of household parts and it helps him soup up his Spinner
enough to enter the big race adds a lot to his already complex
character.
I mean without these scene we have no idea that Deckard is the one who
actually made Roy Batty anyway and I think a lot of people are
confused by that.
WR ; )
Womb Raider
Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > LOL! Hey, that might work.
> >
> > How about "Blade Runner on Ice"?
> >
> >
>
> Marginally worse than "Blade Runner on crack"
None of it will ever top the broadway production of Blade Runner. I
mean you gotta admit that Carol Burnett and Jason Alexander really
shined in those roles. They BECAME the characters! The transformation
was startling. I cried at the end. They are still the personification
of Deckard and Rachael to me and will always be so.
WR
Womb Raider
Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I maintain
> that a work of art, once complete, is completely detached from its author,
> and so is completely open to interpretation.
See, to that I'd say then why bother creating art at all? If it's just
going to be whatever it is to the viewer then your original intent is
meaningless and lost. There's no real reason to even create something
in the first place if your vision is no longer associated with you. How
can one make a statement if others no longer associate the work with
the creator?
If I felt that enough people feel as you do I'd throw away all my tools
this instant and get a real job tomorrow. How utterly depressing. I do
hope you're in the minority.
WR
Womb Raider
<wamc...@ic24.net> wrote:
> There's an even stranger edge to this. I remember a time when all of the
> oddities were supposed to be "deliberately ambiguous" and this was supposed
> to "add to the mystique" or something of the sort. It even made it to a few
> reviews. Other people called things "continuity errors" or just screw-ups.
> Now it seems we could get an official version in which one interpretation is
> given for everything and any deviation from that is a mistake. Is this movie
> just Scott's vision or something much more diverse? Will there only be two
> unicorns in the final cut? Will we get a point-by-point plan explaining why
> Deck is a rep? Will Harrison Ford even get the chance to say what he was
> told / thought at the time? Do we want answers or greater mysteries?
I, for one, just cannot wait to cuddle up with my blanky, my cat, a
really large really hot cup of Hot Cocoa, unplug the phone, lock the
doors, turn off the cell phone, shut down the Mac, draw the blinds,
hide my cars at a neighbors and pop the SE DVD into a my PS2 and listen
to what Mr. Scott has to say about the whole thing via the (if it's on
there) commentary.
WR (I'll be taking notes while watching and I hope others do the same)
Lukas Mariman
"Womb Raider" <wombr...@phonyaddress.com> schreef in bericht
news:300120020442559478%wombr...@phonyaddress.com...
Excellent! :-)
Lukas Mariman
Yes, it was most definitely intentional, although I think PODs point was
that it might *look* like a mistake of some kind to the unsuspecting
"casual" viewer.
And yes, the focus is on Rachael, with Deckard standing in the
background, making it easier to miss. And adding to the uncertainty. But
it was intentional.
Lukas Mariman
I'm still thinking of inserting the subplot where it turns out he is
actually an immortal alien from the planet Zeist.
Then we bring in Sean Connery, accompanied by 4 dancing bears on
monocycles holding up neon signs!
Uhm... Never mind.
Lukas Mariman
Or play Deus Ex!
Bit of a spoiler if you haven't played it yet:
...
...
...
...
...
The main character, J.C. Denton, turns out to be artificial; a clone (or
something similar) with nanotech enhancements. A bit like a Nexus 6 with
superhuman powers, I guess.
Evil Sponge
Lol....sorry 'bout that :o) What is your job? And anyway, that doesn't mean
that an artist doesn't have great skill or great value... art is very
important (to me, anyway, and I suspect to many other people). My point is,
however, that once an artwork is released into the public, the artist has no
control over it. Ok, it's still interesting to know what the artist thinks,
and what the artist's opinion is, but they cannot dictate what it means, or
what it is supposed to achieve. Ultimately, the only true source of
information is the work of art itself, and only what is contained within it
is of real value. IMO, obviously :o)
Netrunner
>> The fact that Scott put something in the film doesn't mean we
>> have to accept what his intention was.
>
>I could agree with you there and say that Darth Vader is the good guy,
>cause that's the way I see it. He's got this nice organized control of
>the galaxy going and here come these ragtag rebels mucking around with
>it.
>
>Besides, really what did he do that was so bad aside from blowing up
>Alderan? Vader's the good guy, it's obvious..
Well, you are quite free to believe that if you want to. That is your
right to a free interpretation. In that particular case it is
slightly more difficult as he was a cardboard cutout bad-guy. But
then it wouldn't be me you had to convince, only yourself. :-)
Netrunner.
Netrunner
>> I maintain
>> that a work of art, once complete, is completely detached from its author,
>> and so is completely open to interpretation.
>
>See, to that I'd say then why bother creating art at all? If it's just
>going to be whatever it is to the viewer then your original intent is
>meaningless and lost. There's no real reason to even create something
>in the first place if your vision is no longer associated with you. How
>can one make a statement if others no longer associate the work with
>the creator?
>
>If I felt that enough people feel as you do I'd throw away all my tools
>this instant and get a real job tomorrow. How utterly depressing. I do
>hope you're in the minority.
But you are surely wilfully looking at it as a black and white issue.
In one specific aspect of one particular film, taking an
interpretation that was put there by the sriptwriters and the main
actor and some of the other actors against the one claimed by the
director is hardly a matter of throwing out all his work or his vision
or the whole stunning creation. And the main points of the movie are
questioning life and death, pain, fear and what makes us human, which
are all still true whatever interpretation one chooses of Deckard's
nature. The end result should (I believe) still be that the
replicants are seen to be no different in the important aspects to the
humans and that is a parallel to many other things in our lives.
So, stop pretending that someone expressing a difference of opinion
about this one small thing means any of us are completely disregarding
Scott's vision and art in this and other films.
Netrunner
Netrunner
>> Even if Scott had
>> Gaff say, "You are a Rep", there are sufficient lies and alterations
>> of reality within the film, that this would not actually be proof of
>> anything.
>
You can think what you like.
RoyBoy
> I maintain that a work of art, once complete, is completely
> detached from its author, and so is completely open to
> interpretation.
WB:
***
See, to that I'd say then why bother creating art at all? If it's just
going to be whatever it is to the viewer then your original intent is
meaningless and lost. There's no real reason to even create something
in the first place if your vision is no longer associated with you. How
can one make a statement if others no longer associate the work with
the creator?
If I felt that enough people feel as you do I'd throw away all my tools
this instant and get a real job tomorrow. How utterly depressing. I do
hope you're in the minority.
***
Throw'em down then!
Any work of art should stand on its own, period.
Whether its short story, or a pet rock.
I wouldn't say its completely detached though,
but it can be if someone doesn't know the artist...
then it becomes detached.
Like Picasso's Guernica...I didn't have a bleeding
clue what the hell was going on with that till I saw a
bibliography...but since its out there I might have come
up with something differing from it...though I can't
imagine what it would be.
Question...what is better art? Is it like Guernica was
for me? Confusing...meaningless, unless you know
of where the artist is coming from?
Or ambiguous? Like Blade Runner?
I would hypothesize it depends on your personality.
If you like to participate in giving the art meaning
thru your own experince...then BR...I can't think
of a definition for the other camp(s).
Evil Sponge
"RoyBoy" <aph...@usa.net> wrote in message
news:NOV58.17$eS1....@read1.cgocable.net...
This is a great example... it really illustrates the whole author's
intention issue well. I was familiar with the painting before, and have a
vague memory of learning something about it at school.... I knew that it had
something to do with the second world war, and that was pretty much it.
However, the bombing of Guernica is really something I know very little
about, and so the fact that the painting represents it means very little to
me as well. When I look at it, I see a powerful, dark, confusing and
emotional scene, and it does seem to present images of death, but I don't
really associate it with WWII... not emotionally anyway, only on an
intellectual level... for me it does not contain any conspicuous WWII
iconography.
I would say that there are different levels of understanding for this
picture... the first two important levels as I perceive them are:
1) Knowing nothing about it whatsoever.
2) Knowing that it is about WWII
And now, thanks to RoyBoy, I've just read some more about it and discovered
even more hidden meaning... apparently there are concealed harlequins and
death imagery in it, and it uses "art-magic", bringing me to a 3rd level...
which I suspect RoyBoy is at as well.
But has that changed my overall impression of the painting? Not really... it
still evokes the same emotional response, and although now I can sit smugly
in the knowledge that I know a bit more about what Picasso intended, it
doesn't really mean a lot to me.
BR, however deals with a lot of issues that are familiar to me, and indeed
should be familiar to anyone who is human... you can approach BR with a hell
of a lot of different knowledge levels, and I know from experience that they
can affect your perception of the work. When I first saw BR, I was
relatively young, and didn't understand half of what it's about... I just
saw an extremely atmospheric and cool looking film. Now I'm still left with
a lasting impression of the film's breathtaking beauty, but I also see many
other issues because of what I've learned about it. So does RS's opinion
matter to me? Yes, as with Picasso's "secret harlequins", it's nice to know
that it's there... but does it affect my overall impression of the film? No.
>
> Question...what is better art? Is it like Guernica was
> for me? Confusing...meaningless, unless you know
> of where the artist is coming from?
Is that really how you felt? Did the painting have no effect on you until
you understood what is was supposed to be about?
>
> Or ambiguous? Like Blade Runner?
Maybe you can choose whether or not the knowledge you have affects your
perception of the work... although I'm not sure...
>
> I would hypothesize it depends on your personality.
> If you like to participate in giving the art meaning
> thru your own experince...then BR...I can't think
> of a definition for the other camp(s).
Yeah, I like this hypothesis... when you gonna test it? :o)
>
>
Apologies for the long and waffley post.... :o)
Niclas Hermansson
Hm. Hmmm. Sensual cyborgs. Something just sparkled in a very dark corner of
my mind. I reckon I'll have to check it out...
Lukas Mariman
"Niclas Hermansson" <rep...@philipkdick.com> schreef in bericht
news:pGX58.7265$O5.1...@nntpserver.swip.net...
>
> > Run out right now and rent/buy or borrow the film "Ghost in the
Shell"
> > :)
> > WR
>
> Hm. Hmmm. Sensual cyborgs. Something just sparkled in a very dark
corner of
> my mind. I reckon I'll have to check it out...
What? You haven't seen it yet? I am well and truly shocked. ;)
RoyBoy
This is a great example... it really illustrates the whole author's
intention issue well. I was familiar with the painting before, and have a
vague memory of learning something about it at school.... I knew that it had
something to do with the second world war, and that was pretty much it.
However, the bombing of Guernica is really something I know very little
about, and so the fact that the painting represents it means very little to
me as well. When I look at it, I see a powerful, dark, confusing and
emotional scene, and it does seem to present images of death, but I don't
really associate it with WWII... not emotionally anyway, only on an
intellectual level... for me it does not contain any conspicuous WWII
iconography.
I tellz ya...I gotz the nack. :')
***
I would say that there are different levels of understanding for this
picture... the first two important levels as I perceive them are:
1) Knowing nothing about it whatsoever.
2) Knowing that it is about WWII
***
Sounds about right.
***
And now, thanks to RoyBoy, I've just read some more about it and discovered
even more hidden meaning... apparently there are concealed harlequins and
death imagery in it, and it uses "art-magic", bringing me to a 3rd level...
which I suspect RoyBoy is at as well.
***
Sorry, I'm on level 2.
[snip...]
***
Is that really how you felt? Did the painting have no
effect on you until you understood what is was supposed
to be about?
***
Pretty much, I'm not an art guy.
And I think I'm in the majority there.
***
Maybe you can choose whether or not the
knowledge you have affects your
perception of the work... although I'm not sure...
***
Well it certainly did when I didn't have anything
to associate with the painting in the first place...
it was a void that was readily filled.
***
Yeah, I like this hypothesis... when you gonna test it? :o)
***
Dunno... :')
An alternative example is the Garden of Eden.
I was Christian and was taught to take it as it was written,
man's original sin, being thrown out of favor with God and
thrown out to be made mortal. A good book and that was
turned upside down for me. A sidestep to literature isn't
too much of a leap I hope for the discussion of Art.
***
Apologies for the long and waffley post.... :o)
***
Sokay.
Womb Raider
Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> What is your job?
I tend to work in the film industry when I'm not writing. That's all
I'm saying.
> My point is,
> however, that once an artwork is released into the public, the artist
> has no
> control over it.
I agree with that. No problem there.
> Ok, it's still interesting to know what the artist thinks,
> and what the artist's opinion is, but they cannot dictate what it
> means, or
> what it is supposed to achieve.
It's that one of the fundamental tenents of art though? To create
something to try and achieve some reaction from people, some emotional
response? I think one of the main purposes of creating some work of art
is to try and achieve something with it. By that reasoning there's no
impetus to create anything. There's no reason to try and make
"something". Maybe this explains so-called modern art. Toss some paint
on a canvas behind a jet engine and call it "art". Bah...now I'm upset.
> Ultimately, the only true source of
> information is the work of art itself, and only what is contained
> within it
> is of real value. IMO, obviously :o)
I can't just leave the artist that created the work out of the equation
like that. Now I'm even more discouraged than before. By your reasoning
something an elephant paints or some paint spilled in a garage is just
as important as a painting by Monet. I can't agree with that.
By that belief, anything can be "art". A tossed away partially-filled
crumpled can of soda. There's no artist behind it, no intent, no desire
to achieve something. It's there.
WR (considers getting a "real" job)
Womb Raider
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
> So, stop pretending that someone expressing a difference of opinion
> about this one small thing means any of us are completely disregarding
> Scott's vision and art in this and other films.
>
> Netrunner
Okay.
WR
Womb Raider
Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > Like Picasso's Guernica...I didn't have a bleeding
> > clue what the hell was going on with that till I saw a
> > bibliography...but since its out there I might have come
> > up with something differing from it...though I can't
> > imagine what it would be.
There's this:
> Picasso remarked, "It isn't up to the painter to define the symbols.
> Otherwise it would be better if he wrote them out in so many words! The
> public who look at the picture must interpret the symbols as they
> understand them.
So there ya go. No wonder I, a writer, don't -can't- agree. I think
everything should be written.
WR
Evil Sponge
> In article <ATQ58.53681$ka7.8...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>,
> Evil Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
> > What is your job?
>
> I tend to work in the film industry when I'm not writing. That's all
> I'm saying.
>
You're actually james cameron in disguise, aren't you? Is that why we
haven't seen a proper picture of you yet? Jeez, man... are you gonna answer
the question now? :o)
> > My point is,
> > however, that once an artwork is released into the public, the artist
> > has no
> > control over it.
>
> I agree with that. No problem there.
>
> > Ok, it's still interesting to know what the artist thinks,
> > and what the artist's opinion is, but they cannot dictate what it
> > means, or
> > what it is supposed to achieve.
>
> It's that one of the fundamental tenents of art though? To create
> something to try and achieve some reaction from people, some emotional
> response? I think one of the main purposes of creating some work of art
> is to try and achieve something with it. By that reasoning there's no
> impetus to create anything. There's no reason to try and make
> "something". Maybe this explains so-called modern art. Toss some paint
> on a canvas behind a jet engine and call it "art". Bah...now I'm upset.
That isn't my motivation at all.... for me, art is creation for the sake of
creation. If I do something, it's usually to please myself firstly, but
obviously if someone else praises it, it makes me feel good. The only thing
that I really achieve is simply to have created something which, hopefully,
I like. Art doesn't always have to be about messages or goals... it's just
something you do because you feel the need to do it. Nothing anyone says or
does could change my desire to create something... I fail to understand how
what I've said has this effect on you.
>
> > Ultimately, the only true source of
> > information is the work of art itself, and only what is contained
> > within it
> > is of real value. IMO, obviously :o)
>
> I can't just leave the artist that created the work out of the equation
> like that. Now I'm even more discouraged than before. By your reasoning
> something an elephant paints or some paint spilled in a garage is just
> as important as a painting by Monet. I can't agree with that.
>
> By that belief, anything can be "art". A tossed away partially-filled
> crumpled can of soda. There's no artist behind it, no intent, no desire
> to achieve something. It's there.
>
Yes, but it's crap. Just because it may be considered art doesn't mean it's
good. Maybe the artist finds some simplistic beauty in a discarded can of
coke, but to me it's a pretentious pile of shit. Creating a crumpled soda
can wouldn't give me much satisfaction :o)
> WR (considers getting a "real" job)
Yeah.... Titanic was crap. Aliens wasn't as good as Alien. Loved Terminator,
though.
Evil Sponge
Lol..... so you don't like paintings at all? Or you just don't like
paintings that supposedly have messages? I have to agree with Picasso on
this one.. actually I really like that explanation. Ok... how about this...
have you read T.S Eliot's The Waste Land?
http://eliotswasteland.tripod.com/
You have now.. :o)
It's kind of the literary Guernica... full of obscure symbolism and
references... it reads very nicely, but unless you understand what's being
referred to, you haven't got a clue what's going on. But it's still a great
poem. It proves that writing can be just as obscure as painting... it
doesn't always have to be completely clear.
> WR
Evil Sponge
< various snippage ensues, and I can't be bothered pointing out where :o) >
> ***
> I would say that there are different levels of understanding for this
> picture... the first two important levels as I perceive them are:
>
> 1) Knowing nothing about it whatsoever.
> 2) Knowing that it is about WWII
> ***
>
> Sounds about right.
>
> ***
> And now, thanks to RoyBoy, I've just read some more about it and
discovered
> even more hidden meaning... apparently there are concealed harlequins and
> death imagery in it, and it uses "art-magic", bringing me to a 3rd
level...
> which I suspect RoyBoy is at as well.
> ***
>
> Sorry, I'm on level 2.
Oh.... ok.... so was I until yesterday. You can do my little experiment now
:o) Look at the painting, then read this:
http://www.cix.co.uk/~phreak/picasso/secret_guernica.html
Then look at again... does it make you see it any differently?
>
> [snip...]
>
> ***
> Is that really how you felt? Did the painting have no
> effect on you until you understood what is was supposed
> to be about?
> ***
>
> Pretty much, I'm not an art guy.
> And I think I'm in the majority there.
>
Maybe, but can you not appreciate visual beauty? I don't think there's any
kind of division between art guys and non-art guys... you see something, and
you either like it or you don't.
> An alternative example is the Garden of Eden.
>
> I was Christian and was taught to take it as it was written,
oof
> man's original sin, being thrown out of favor with God and
> thrown out to be made mortal. A good book and that was
> turned upside down for me. A sidestep to literature isn't
> too much of a leap I hope for the discussion of Art.
>
So your knowledge of the intention of the work affected how you saw it....
hmmmm...... interesting. Well, that's just another notch on the "why
religion is bad" chart for me :o) I'm reading The Silmarilion at the moment,
and Tolkien's intention with that and LOTR was to create a mythology...
whether it is supposed to be "real" in the sense that the creation myth is,
I don't know... it would be interesting to teach a child to believe that and
see what they thought of it. Not that I condone cruel life-wrecking
experiments, or anything.
Lukas Mariman
Well, if it means anything to you, I agree with your POV completely.
What is your actual job, anyway? You got me curious there. Oh, I just
read in another post you're not telling... :)
Niclas Hermansson
> I can't just leave the artist that created the work out of the equation
> like that. Now I'm even more discouraged than before. By your reasoning
> something an elephant paints or some paint spilled in a garage is just
> as important as a painting by Monet. I can't agree with that.
Well, I can't disconnect the work from the artist either. In fact, I
represent the other extreme. If I can't respect the artist as a person, I
can't respect his/her work either. I often read bibliographies in order to
understand what kind of person the artist is/was and what he really wanted
to say with his work. OK, this might limit my horizon, but hey: my first
priority is to lose myself in mesmerising art, not to get "educated" or
"sophisticated".
I'm also tired of excellent creative expressions being analysed to hell,
e.g. Kafka's work (OK, it's a pretentious example). "Experts" who needs to
feel important always try to prove he was a homosexual, a marxist etc. It'
symptomatic one's not allowed to explore the humouristic side of Kafka, for
instance. Perhaps he just wanted to let off some steam through dark and
absurd humour? (OK, I guess I'm the "expert" who needs to feel important
now.) Anyway, I think the original intention of the artist is forgotten all
too often.
BTW, I'm speaking in general terms now, not about the OV/DC issue in
particular. I think Blade Runner is playing in a league of its own...
Maybe this depressed you even more, WR? :-)
NH
Niclas Hermansson
Lukas Mariman <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote in message
news:3c584844$0$75150$ba62...@news.skynet.be...
Not half as shocked as I am. ;-)
Niclas Hermansson
>
> "Womb Raider" <wombr...@phonyaddress.com> schreef in bericht
> news:300120020442589651%wombr...@phonyaddress.com...
> > In article <kpU48.6719$O5.1...@nntpserver.swip.net>, Niclas
> Hermansson
> > <rep...@philipkdick.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I pity this poor bastard in this cruel world,
> > > and the fact that he's been deceived beyond reality (*his* reality,
> that is)
> > > emphasizes the tragedy for me. It's weird, but it's easier for me to
> > > identify with Deck as a rep.
> >
> > Run out right now and rent/buy or borrow the film "Ghost in the Shell"
> > :)
>
> Or play Deus Ex!
>
> Bit of a spoiler if you haven't played it yet:
>
You know, I've seen that title mentioned before by BR fans. I reckon it have
to be good. I also reckon I have to rob a bank to buy a better computer so I
can play some decent games soon. :-)
Lukas Mariman
> ... [about GiTS]
> > What? You haven't seen it yet? I am well and truly shocked. ;)
>
> Not half as shocked as I am. ;-)
Well, if you're going to see it, you're in for a treat.
Netrunner
>> I can't just leave the artist that created the work out of the equation
>> like that. Now I'm even more discouraged than before. By your reasoning
>> something an elephant paints or some paint spilled in a garage is just
>> as important as a painting by Monet. I can't agree with that.
>
>Well, I can't disconnect the work from the artist either. In fact, I
>represent the other extreme. If I can't respect the artist as a person, I
>can't respect his/her work either. I often read bibliographies in order to
>understand what kind of person the artist is/was and what he really wanted
>to say with his work. OK, this might limit my horizon, but hey: my first
>priority is to lose myself in mesmerising art, not to get "educated" or
>"sophisticated".
Well you know how I hate to drop any notes of cynicism into any
argument, ;-) , but surely reading biographies about artists *is*
"getting educated"? If the first priority is to lose oneself in the
art itself, then does anything at all about the artist matter? (I
answer my own questoin below ...) Perhaps you're losing yourself in
the art, then seeing what the artist had to say about it, then losing
yourself some more?
>I'm also tired of excellent creative expressions being analysed to hell,
>e.g. Kafka's work (OK, it's a pretentious example). "Experts" who needs to
>feel important always try to prove he was a homosexual, a marxist etc. It'
>symptomatic one's not allowed to explore the humouristic side of Kafka, for
>instance. Perhaps he just wanted to let off some steam through dark and
>absurd humour? (OK, I guess I'm the "expert" who needs to feel important
>now.) Anyway, I think the original intention of the artist is forgotten all
>too often.
Well, sometimes, writing is making a point beyond the story. One
might read Narnia books or Animal Farm just as interesting stories, or
one could explore the characters of the authors and read huge amounts
more into what they're saying. But then one could read Lord of the
Rings and try to equate a lot of politics and homosexual intentions to
it (as people have done) when that isn't really there to much extent.
As for Kafka, having worked on a stark stage production of
Metamorphosis, I've had enough of him to last me decades.
>BTW, I'm speaking in general terms now, not about the OV/DC issue in
>particular. I think Blade Runner is playing in a league of its own...
>
>Maybe this depressed you even more, WR? :-)
I think it is unfair to some other films to put BR completely above
them in class. There are some excellent other films out there as
well, (though I'll let each of you decide what those other films are!)
Netrunner
"The animals were happy as they had never conceived it possible to be.
Every mouthful of food was an acute positive pleasure, now that it was
truly their own food, produced by themselves and for themselves, not
doled out to them by a grudging master."
- Animal Farm
RoyBoy
Oh.... ok.... so was I until yesterday.
You can do my little experiment now
:o) Look at the painting, then read this:
http://www.cix.co.uk/~phreak/picasso/secret_guernica.html
Then look at again... does it make you see it any differently?
***
Yes, but not much. Now I focus on the central face...
and the tear instead of the bulb and the Horse face.
I reinforces what is already there for me.
RB:
> Pretty much, I'm not an art guy.
> And I think I'm in the majority there.
***
Maybe, but can you not appreciate visual beauty?
I don't think there's any kind of division between art
guys and non-art guys... you see something, and
you either like it or you don't.
***
Well anyone can appreciate visual beauty, but looking
behind it, to see its meaning and to care to see it is
another matter.
I would make the case, that a non-art guy fits in
the middle of like and dislike, he would be indifferent.
I was indifferent to the meaning of Guernica beforehand,
but I guess I would have to admit to being an art
guy when I was introduced to level 2.
Evil Sponge
"Niclas Hermansson" <rep...@philipkdick.com> wrote in message
news:kWf68.7372$O5.1...@nntpserver.swip.net...
> You know, I've seen that title mentioned before by BR fans. I reckon it
have
> to be good. I also reckon I have to rob a bank to buy a better computer so
I
> can play some decent games soon. :-)
>
>
It's a fantastic game.... well worth your hard earned/stolen cash
Evil Sponge
> ***
> Oh.... ok.... so was I until yesterday.
> You can do my little experiment now
> :o) Look at the painting, then read this:
>
> http://www.cix.co.uk/~phreak/picasso/secret_guernica.html
>
> Then look at again... does it make you see it any differently?
> ***
>
> Yes, but not much. Now I focus on the central face...
> and the tear instead of the bulb and the Horse face.
>
> I reinforces what is already there for me.
Yes, I suppose that's how I feel too. It hasn't radically cahnged my view of
it.
>
> RB:
> > Pretty much, I'm not an art guy.
> > And I think I'm in the majority there.
>
> ***
> Maybe, but can you not appreciate visual beauty?
> I don't think there's any kind of division between art
> guys and non-art guys... you see something, and
> you either like it or you don't.
> ***
>
> Well anyone can appreciate visual beauty, but looking
> behind it, to see its meaning and to care to see it is
> another matter.
>
> I would make the case, that a non-art guy fits in
> the middle of like and dislike, he would be indifferent.
> I was indifferent to the meaning of Guernica beforehand,
> but I guess I would have to admit to being an art
> guy when I was introduced to level 2.
>
>
I would say that you were an art guy as soon as you looked at a painting and
were interested in it... which is kinda contradictoary to what I said above,
but hey.... what ya gonna do? :o)
Womb Raider
Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Oh.... ok.... so was I until yesterday. You can do my little experiment now
> :o) Look at the painting, then read this:
>
> http://www.cix.co.uk/~phreak/picasso/secret_guernica.html
>
> Then look at again... does it make you see it any differently?
All that seems EXTREMLY interpretive to me. I love the bit at the end
of the page:
"All these findings have come about from studying the "unauthenticated"
1934 Picasso drawing."
I think this is a case of cloud gazing, seeing what you want to see.
It's unavoidable that shapes (espiecally rotated and/or clipped to show
only part) will take on the appearance of something familiar to the
viewer.
We'd do it all the time in school. You'd stare at the flat industrial
carpet for a while and all the organized tightly woven loops would form
images, some of them rather detailed.
I liken it to a Rorschach (inkblot) test or dreams: The mind is
desperately trying to make sense of randomness and mold everything it
sees into something familiar, classifiable.
Take the "skull" for example. They say themselves, "The skull's
mechanical appearance seems appropriate to the modern weaponry used in
the 1937 bombing" which seems like outright molding to their own
expectations to me. Hey, it's kinda skull-esque but not
quite...hmm...obviously he was going for that mechanical appearance.
Hmm, now why's that...
It's a self-feeding circle.
WR
Womb Raider
Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> > > What is your job?
> >
> > I tend to work in the film industry when I'm not writing. That's all
> > I'm saying.
> >
>
> You're actually james cameron in disguise, aren't you? Is that why we
> haven't seen a proper picture of you yet? Jeez, man... are you gonna answer
> the question now? :o)
Heheh. I answered it ;)
> I fail to understand how
> what I've said has this effect on you.
I dunno. Perhaps art, hmm looks better in quotations "Art" is more
personal to me than most.
> Yes, but it's crap. Just because it may be considered art doesn't mean
> it's
> good. Maybe the artist finds some simplistic beauty in a discarded can
> of
> coke, but to me it's a pretentious pile of shit. Creating a crumpled
> soda
> can wouldn't give me much satisfaction :o)
Interesting how you brought coke into this instead of soda, then
reverted back to soda. Am I right in thinking you're not a big Warhol
fan?
> > WR (considers getting a "real" job)
>
> Yeah.... Titanic was crap. Aliens wasn't as good as Alien. Loved
> Terminator,
> though.
Heh. Thanks. Wait until you see what I have planned for T3 :)
WR
Womb Raider
<lukas....@skynet.be> wrote:
> Well, if it means anything to you, I agree with your POV completely.
> What is your actual job, anyway? You got me curious there. Oh, I just
> read in another post you're not telling... :)
Thanks :) Apparently I'm James Cameron today. Tomorrow, I'll be someone
else.
I'm behind the camera
Sometimes in front
there's lights
and dark
I'm not your ordinary grunt
I build love then break it
with tears
careers
and frights
how's that for 6am-been-up-all-night-working esoteric rhetoric?
Do people have an off-switch? Like a sleep-now-pay-later kinda thing. I
need sleep in a serious way.
WR
Womb Raider
<rep...@philipkdick.com> wrote:
> I'm also tired of excellent creative expressions being analysed to hell,
> e.g. Kafka's work (OK, it's a pretentious example). "Experts" who needs to
> feel important always try to prove he was a homosexual, a marxist etc. It'
> symptomatic one's not allowed to explore the humouristic side of Kafka, for
> instance. Perhaps he just wanted to let off some steam through dark and
> absurd humour? (OK, I guess I'm the "expert" who needs to feel important
> now.)
Overanalysis bugs me a lot as well. I always picture the artist saying
to himself for example, "Hmm when paint this I'll add a hidden skull
here...and maybe a bull's head there....no one will see that one...oh,
and I'll add a funny malformed head of hitler here and see if anyone
notices." I'm sure some artists do precisely that but they are the
execption rather than the rule.
These people that tend to dissect some work of art for some deeper
meaning simply, in my opinon, can't take some things at face value.
What's worse is when they say things like, "What hee was going for
here, is his symbolic rebirth even if he didn't know it at the time."
AAAH!
Maybe that sculpter over there just wanted a really cool looking tiger
ripping the sides of a wood crate open. He has no idea what's inside
the crate and why the tiger wants it so bad. It doesn't ' matter. That
tiger just looks cool. Remember drawing things as a kid, same thing.
And likewise, I shudder to think of some of the wild speculations some
arcaeologists have come up with over the years over little understood
cultures and ruins.
WR (do I seem jaded now? I hope not.)
Womb Raider
<rep...@philipkdick.com> wrote:
> BTW, I'm speaking in general terms now, not about the OV/DC issue in
> particular. I think Blade Runner is playing in a league of its own...
>
> Maybe this depressed you even more, WR? :-)
>
> NH
Not at all. (okay a teeny tiny bit) but it's really really interesting
to learn how different people interally appreciate art...er...I mean
"Art".
WR (just noticed the Rocket Widget in his bottle of Guiness....weird I
wonder what Guiness was going for here...embryonic synthsis of pleasure
and pain? The sweet and sour of full vs empty? Perhaps the phallic
penetration of the alchohol's libido imbuement...I'm going to bed...)
Womb Raider
Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> Lol..... so you don't like paintings at all? Or you just don't like
> paintings that supposedly have messages?
I don't like people over analyzing things. If the artist sez, "Hey WR,
In my painting didja catch that naked molerat holding up the sign that
reads 'I'm out of ink again' I hid over there behind the crashed
pick'um-up truck by the guys launching the hot-air ballons?" Then I'll
be shocked and amazed that it's there hidden for all the world to see.
I'd also, taking the opportunity since the artist is at hand, to ask,
"Wow. No. What the hell does it mean?"
Otherwise, if it's not from the horse's mouth, so to speak, I'll just
take what the critics, analysts say into consideration.
> Ok... how about this...
> have you read T.S Eliot's The Waste Land?
>
> http://eliotswasteland.tripod.com/
>
>
> You have now.. :o)
Hmm. That reminds me of Joyce's "Finnigan's Wake". Or better yet Thomas
Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" which was interpreted myrid ways over the
years. It was critcally acclaimed for it's hidden meaning and deft
interpretation of the human condition.
Finally someone asked him what this or that meant and Pynchon said
something along the lines of, "Hell if I know. I was stoned most of the
time I spent writing it." That sums it up nicely for me.
Also I'm really finicky with poetry. I tend to see only sentance
fragments. I actually equate most poetry with DVD easter eggs if you
can believe it. I'll leave that for another posting though. Maybe
someone here can interpret that for me.
Haiku I like though. Haiku is cool. Here's some BR Haiku since I'm in
the mood:
Shush of filthy rain
Can't see crowds for the people
My spinner's door leaks
I guess my beef with poetry is that if you have something to say, say
it. Why dress it up and try to obfuscate the meaning. Why speak in
riddles? it just makes whatever point you're attempting to make all the
harder to grasp and on top of all that opens it up to wild
misinterpretation. If there is something to be interpreted in the first
place. Maybe the rhythm was just nice.
And another thing, I'm on a roll tonight, I think this whole deal of
performing autopsy's on works of art is just fodder for the non-artist
because no matter what they "create", no matter how meaningless or
trite it is in reality, it'll be seen as pregnant with meaning, rife
with ideological underpinnings and hailed as a masterwork if it brings
the right price.
WR (you guys/gals gotta stop keeping me up this late. I'm getting all
giddy now. Hey, it's raining...cool :)
Lukas Mariman
> In article <3c592576$0$75152$ba62...@news.skynet.be>, Lukas Mariman
> <lukas....@skynet.be> wrote:
>
> > Well, if it means anything to you, I agree with your POV completely.
> > What is your actual job, anyway? You got me curious there. Oh, I
just
> > read in another post you're not telling... :)
>
> Thanks :) Apparently I'm James Cameron today. Tomorrow, I'll be
someone
> else.
I know the feeling. A former regular once asked me if I was not actually
Harrison Ford posting here incognito... :-)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=nl&threadm=72iiqr%2428i%241%40news0.s
kynet.be&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fq%3D%252BLukas%2B%252BHarrison%26hl%3Dnl%
26selm%3D72iiqr%252428i%25241%2540news0.skynet.be%26rnum%3D2
(Extremely long hyperlink from hell... If it doesn't work, search for
"Lukas" and "Harrison" (like this: "+Lukas +Harrison", without the
quotes, on Google Discussions.)
> I'm behind the camera
> Sometimes in front
> there's lights
> and dark
> I'm not your ordinary grunt
> I build love then break it
> with tears
> careers
> and frights
>
>
> how's that for 6am-been-up-all-night-working esoteric rhetoric?
Very nice. :-)
Netrunner
>Do people have an off-switch? Like a sleep-now-pay-later kinda thing. I
>need sleep in a serious way.
Sleep now is always free. Its the don't-sleep-now-pay-later that
really costs you.
Netrunner
>I liken it to a Rorschach (inkblot) test or dreams: The mind is
>desperately trying to make sense of randomness and mold everything it
>sees into something familiar, classifiable.
Do you see the Mothman?
I would go an stare at some clouds right now, but as the sky is a
uniform grey, it wouldn't be much fun.
czf
This sounds like a conversation from on of Antoine de Saint Exupery's books,
Le Petite Prince.
Drawing number one is not a fedora hat. The art critics didn't understand
(grownups).
Drawing number two shows you that it is actually a boa constrictor that has
swallowed an elephant.
"Draw me a sheep", says Le Petite Prince.
Ultimately, a crate was drawn so that the art critic (Le Petite Prince)
could decide for himself what the sheep looked like, because he was unhappy
with the sheep rendering done by the grownup who, as a child, had done
drawing number one and drawing number two.
AND -
The book was dedicated to Leon.
Two BR references (sheep and Leon) in one post. Back on topic!
CZF
Netrunner
<wombr...@phonyaddress.com> had a brainstorm and posted this to
alt.fan.blade-runner:
>In article <Uz868.522$sU.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, Evil
>Sponge <evil....@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> Lol..... so you don't like paintings at all? Or you just don't like
>> paintings that supposedly have messages?
>
>I don't like people over analyzing things. If the artist sez, "Hey WR,
>In my painting didja catch that naked molerat holding up the sign that
>reads 'I'm out of ink again' I hid over there behind the crashed
>pick'um-up truck by the guys launching the hot-air ballons?" Then I'll
>be shocked and amazed that it's there hidden for all the world to see.
Or, maybe the naked molerat (?!?) is hiding so well, you can't
actually see it at all, but it was painted first and then the truck
was painted over the top of it, so technically it really is behind the
truck ........
>I'd also, taking the opportunity since the artist is at hand, to ask,
>"Wow. No. What the hell does it mean?"
>
>Otherwise, if it's not from the horse's mouth, so to speak, I'll just
>take what the critics, analysts say into consideration.
>
>> Ok... how about this...
>> have you read T.S Eliot's The Waste Land?
>>
>> http://eliotswasteland.tripod.com/
>>
>> You have now.. :o)
Err... no, I don't think so ...
>Hmm. That reminds me of Joyce's "Finnigan's Wake". Or better yet Thomas
>Pynchon's "Gravity's Rainbow" which was interpreted myrid ways over the
>years. It was critcally acclaimed for it's hidden meaning and deft
>interpretation of the human condition.
>
>Finally someone asked him what this or that meant and Pynchon said
>something along the lines of, "Hell if I know. I was stoned most of the
>time I spent writing it." That sums it up nicely for me.
>
>Also I'm really finicky with poetry. I tend to see only sentance
>fragments. I actually equate most poetry with DVD easter eggs if you
>can believe it. I'll leave that for another posting though. Maybe
>someone here can interpret that for me.
Well I think I know what you mean ... if I'm interpreting what you've
said correctly ....
>Haiku I like though. Haiku is cool. Here's some BR Haiku since I'm in
>the mood:
>
>Shush of filthy rain
>Can't see crowds for the people
>My spinner's door leaks
The only problem
with Haiku is that you just
get started and then
>I guess my beef with poetry is that if you have something to say, say
>it. Why dress it up and try to obfuscate the meaning. Why speak in
>riddles? it just makes whatever point you're attempting to make all the
>harder to grasp and on top of all that opens it up to wild
>misinterpretation. If there is something to be interpreted in the first
>place. Maybe the rhythm was just nice.
Well, firstly why not? Good poetry for me (and I do appreciate the
odd bit) evokes a great deal with few words carefully chosen. Playing
with words, sounds and meanings. So what if people read things into
them you didn't think you put there. But good poetry can also just be
lyrical without dense meaning. Succinct. Instructions should be
clearly written without any obfuscation. Saying something in poetry
doesn't need to either make points clearly or make points at all. But
it can, if well written, evoke a great deal that simple prose do not
easily achieve.
>And another thing, I'm on a roll tonight, I think this whole deal of
>performing autopsy's on works of art is just fodder for the non-artist
>because no matter what they "create", no matter how meaningless or
>trite it is in reality, it'll be seen as pregnant with meaning, rife
>with ideological underpinnings and hailed as a masterwork if it brings
>the right price.
Some people do seem to make a living from other people's art.
>WR (you guys/gals gotta stop keeping me up this late. I'm getting all
>giddy now. Hey, it's raining...cool :)
Yeah well. Best let me get back to analysing Blade Runner, why Ridley
made the eye theme, what the significance of the colour of their coats
is and why the male reps wear long coats when the female reps go out
in little clothing. Except for Rachael - is she different somehow...?
Pardon me while I disappear up my own analysis.
Netrunner.
--
Alberto Giacometti, (when asked which of his creations he would rescue
from a fire:
"It depends on what is in my house. If there was a cat, and my works,
I would save the cat. A cat's life is more important than art."
--
Netrunner
>This sounds like a conversation from on of Antoine de Saint Exupery's books,
>Le Petite Prince.
Indeed. (Note Petit is without the 'e' at the end - I wouldn't
normally take any notice, but with the 'e' makes it (grammatically)
feminine, which given his nature is, I suppose, amusing.)
>Drawing number one is not a fedora hat. The art critics didn't understand
>(grownups).
>
>Drawing number two shows you that it is actually a boa constrictor that has
>swallowed an elephant.
>
>"Draw me a sheep", says Le Petite Prince.
>
>Ultimately, a crate was drawn so that the art critic (Le Petite Prince)
>could decide for himself what the sheep looked like, because he was unhappy
>with the sheep rendering done by the grownup who, as a child, had done
>drawing number one and drawing number two.
>
>AND -
>
>The book was dedicated to Leon.
>
>Two BR references (sheep and Leon) in one post. Back on topic!
You could talk about Off-World ....
"For you who love the little prince, and for me, nothing in the
universe can be the same if somewhere, we do not know where, a sheep
we never saw has-yes or no-eaten a rose."
Netrunner
--
"It is only with the heart that one can see rightly; what is essential
is invisible to the eye."
--
czf
news:dm3l5ushc6fh8ulg0...@4ax.com...
>
> >This sounds like a conversation from on of Antoine de Saint Exupery's
books,
> >Le Petite Prince.
>
> Indeed. (Note Petit is without the 'e' at the end - I wouldn't
> normally take any notice, but with the 'e' makes it (grammatically)
> feminine, which given his nature is, I suppose, amusing.)
You are correct. My bad. I originally read that book in French, too, so
double bad. The English translation is pretty fair to the original, but it
doesn't "sound" right. When read in French, it flows better.
I frequently get the gender incorrect in both French and Spanish.
And, much to the dismay of my Cuban family, I'll get started in a sentence
in Spanish, unconsciously lapse into French, and end in English.
Fortunately, both my French and Spanish (and a few others) are seriously
rusty, so I just stick to English now.
> >AND -
> >
> >The book was dedicated to Leon.
> >
> >Two BR references (sheep and Leon) in one post. Back on topic!
>
> You could talk about Off-World ....
"Asteroid 325 was inhabited by a King ... but the entire planet was crammed
and obstructed by the King's Magnificent ermine robe ... for what the king
fundamentally insisted upon was that his authority should be respected ...
but, because he was a good man, he made his orders reasonable ... "I will
make you Minister of Justice" ... "but there is nobody here to judge" ...
"then you shall judge yourself, that is the most difficult thing of all ...
it is much more difficult to judge oneself than to judge others ... if you
succeed in judging yourself rightly, then you are indeed a man of true
wisdom"
(hmmm, perhaps an analysis of Eldon Tyrell's Godship versus Netrunner's
Peaceable Kingdom would be in order here ... strictly trying to keep this on
topic ....)
So, we've got Netrunner spouting poetry and swapping quotes from Antoine de
Saint Exupery's books ... sounds like we have a happy camper on our hands.
A celebration is in order! Since it is SuperBowl weekend, I think I'll load
up on a few good videotapes (the Town Library has several classics with
audio descriptive overlay - for those of you who are not visually impaired,
these are movies that have been overdubbed with descriptions of the action
which is spoken between dialogue).
Hmm, between the library, Blockbuster, and what I own, I'm thinking
Casablanca (waves to RoyBoy), The Third Man (waves to Netrunner), The
Maltese Falcon, BladeRunner-Director's Cut (to be watched with my daughter -
waves to Dmitrc), and, while my husband is off with the testosterone brigade
with watch the SuperBowl, The Bridges of Madison County. Or maybe Hanover
Street. Nah, scratch Hanover Street. I'm actually getting tired of
watching/listening to Harrison Ford. (thunderbolt and lightening crash down
from the sky)
Hey! I finally saw a trailer for The Minority Report. Something tells me
that the movie will be a RADICAL departure from the written work by PKD. I
hope that Adderton is played by someone really cool, like Christopher
Walken. But then again, based on the trailer, I wonder if that MAJOR PLOT
element will be discarded for the action-impact of the Pre-Crime arrest
element (which are never even described in the book, but is shown in the
trailer). Sigh. Hollywood. And Tom Cruise to boot (groan).
CZF
--
"I am more powerful than the finger of a king ... I can carry you farther
than any ship could take you"
Evil Sponge
> I know the feeling. A former regular once asked me if I was not actually
> Harrison Ford posting here incognito... :-)
>
>
But HF is a Deck-a-Humaner
... not to mention a BR-is-crapper
Evil Sponge
Yeah, I agree with you on this.
But... if people want to see them, and want to make these weird
interpretations, fair enough. It doesn't change the way I see it, but it's
still an interesting angle.
Evil Sponge
> Interesting how you brought coke into this instead of soda, then
> reverted back to soda. Am I right in thinking you're not a big Warhol
> fan?
>
To be honest it was just for the sake of textual variation... but I wouldn't
say I was a massive Warhol fan. He's alright, ya know? :o)
So you gonna tell us what ya job is now?
Evil Sponge
>
> WR (just noticed the Rocket Widget in his bottle of Guiness....weird I
> wonder what Guiness was going for here...embryonic synthsis of pleasure
> and pain? The sweet and sour of full vs empty? Perhaps the phallic
> penetration of the alchohol's libido imbuement...I'm going to bed...)
ROFL
Niclas Hermansson
>
> >> I can't just leave the artist that created the work out of the equation
> >> like that. Now I'm even more discouraged than before. By your reasoning
> >> something an elephant paints or some paint spilled in a garage is just
> >> as important as a painting by Monet. I can't agree with that.
> >
> >Well, I can't disconnect the work from the artist either. In fact, I
> >represent the other extreme. If I can't respect the artist as a person, I
> >can't respect his/her work either. I often read bibliographies in order
to
> >understand what kind of person the artist is/was and what he really
wanted
> >to say with his work. OK, this might limit my horizon, but hey: my first
> >priority is to lose myself in mesmerising art, not to get "educated" or
> >"sophisticated".
>
> Well you know how I hate to drop any notes of cynicism into any
> argument, ;-) ,
Indeed? :-)
> but surely reading biographies about artists *is*
> "getting educated"? If the first priority is to lose oneself in the
> art itself, then does anything at all about the artist matter? (I
> answer my own questoin below ...) Perhaps you're losing yourself in
> the art, then seeing what the artist had to say about it, then losing
> yourself some more?
Well, I was looking for the right word and "educated" was evidently not the
one. (In Sweden, we're sometimes talking about a phenomenon called
"Swenglish"...) I guess I was trying to say that among some people - culture
journalists, intellectuals etc. - it's often more important to be able to
*say* that you have read a certain book or seen a certain movie, in stead of
just *enjoying* the work of the artist. The works of artists simply become
tokens of status, nothing more.
OK, that probably didn't clarify anything. :-) (You know, a cyberpunk
invention I really found interesting was the language chip. A "click" behind
the ear and voila: you can speak another language.)
> >I'm also tired of excellent creative expressions being analysed to hell,
> >e.g. Kafka's work (OK, it's a pretentious example). "Experts" who needs
to
> >feel important always try to prove he was a homosexual, a marxist etc.
It'
> >symptomatic one's not allowed to explore the humouristic side of Kafka,
for
> >instance. Perhaps he just wanted to let off some steam through dark and
> >absurd humour? (OK, I guess I'm the "expert" who needs to feel important
> >now.) Anyway, I think the original intention of the artist is forgotten
all
> >too often.
>
> Well, sometimes, writing is making a point beyond the story. One
> might read Narnia books or Animal Farm just as interesting stories, or
> one could explore the characters of the authors and read huge amounts
> more into what they're saying. But then one could read Lord of the
> Rings and try to equate a lot of politics and homosexual intentions to
> it (as people have done) when that isn't really there to much extent.
Excellent! Exactly the point I was trying to communicate, but failed.
> As for Kafka, having worked on a stark stage production of
> Metamorphosis, I've had enough of him to last me decades.
>
> >BTW, I'm speaking in general terms now, not about the OV/DC issue in
> >particular. I think Blade Runner is playing in a league of its own...
> >
> >Maybe this depressed you even more, WR? :-)
>
> I think it is unfair to some other films to put BR completely above
> them in class. There are some excellent other films out there as
> well, (though I'll let each of you decide what those other films are!)
There are many excellent movies, but I still think there's something special
about BR:
It's a *20 year* old movie. (Still, the fan following never seems to fade
away.)
Very little is known about the BR "universe". (Still, fan fiction is written
all the time.)
It's a complex movie. (Still, there is a variety of fans from all over the
world, in all ages, of both genders, with different education etc.)
It was, and still is in many respects, an obscure movie. (Still, it's
mentioned "everywhere": in books, TV shows, songs, scientific works,
architectural works, the cineast community, the sci-fi community, the
cyberpunk community, the gothic community, the dark romantic community etc.
etc.)
This probably applies to other movies too, but I'd still say Blade Runner is
a truly rare phenomenon in many respects. IMHO, that is.
Evil Sponge
> Shush of filthy rain
> Can't see crowds for the people
> My spinner's door leaks
>
Oh cool..... can I try?
Rachael is VKed
But I feel the need to smile
She says "lesbian"
I didn't get a seasonal reference in..... but what you gonna do?
Uh.... is it safe to mention lesbians any more?
Kara and/or Dmitrc Burnes
<rep...@philipkdick.com> wrote:
>I'm also tired of excellent creative expressions being analysed to hell,
>e.g. Kafka's work (OK, it's a pretentious example). "Experts" who needs to
>feel important always try to prove he was a homosexual, a marxist etc.
A very small side observation, with _absolutely_ no implications of
homosexuallity: When I last read "The Metamorphosis", I couldn't help
but think about an AIDS patient. The paralell was striking in my mind.
Womb Raider
<Netr...@Netrunner.co.uk> wrote:
We used to run from the "mothman" when we were kids in New York all
those years ago. We'd scare ourselves silly with that one. Kinda like
the Jersey Devil or Ogopogo but this was the local NY myth back then.
WR