Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I thought that Scott was going for a main character must walk in the antagonist's shoes in order to feel for the antagonists, sort of approach.
Like how they do in District 9, where the main character has to be put in the aliens shoes as sort of a punishment, or how in Oldboy, the villain, makes the main character walk in his shoes, to see what he did wrong, etc.
Isn't that what Scott was going for as to why he made Deckard a replicant?
Well I thought that Scott was going for a main character must walk in the antagonist's shoes in order to feel for the antagonists, sort of approach.
Like how they do in District 9, where the main character has to be put in the aliens shoes as sort of a punishment, or how in Oldboy, the villain, makes the main character walk in his shoes, to see what he did wrong, etc.
Isn't that what Scott was going for as to why he made Deckard a replicant?
"Walking in the antagonist's shoes" occurred when Baty was hunting Deckard instead of vice versa, which was made more poignant if Deckard is not a replicant.
"Walking in the antagonist's shoes" occurred when Baty was hunting Deckard instead of vice versa, which was made more poignant if Deckard is not a replicant.
Agreed.
But to address ironpony's question:
Scott has a history of being rather clueless about scripts. If you read the history of his movie, Scott loved Fancher's original script. But he wanted it to "get outside." Fancher's original script all took place in apartments and basements and bars. Scott wanted to "see this world." And he gave most of his attention to populating that world and gave the movie its look that has influenced filmmakers for almost 40 years and remains unequaled to this day.
Similar things happened with the making of ALIEN or BLACK RAIN. Even a movie like G.I. JANE, which is immensely stupid and has some of the worst dialogue I have ever heard in a script ... it still looks gorgeous. There are scenes in that movie that should not only be praised but studied for how gorgeous they are.
So when it comes to the look of a movie and all that entails --- lighting, camera angles, set design, costuming, even the "clutter" in the background --- there is no one better than Ridley Scott.
But when it comes to basic storytelling skills --- character motivation, avoiding anachronism, plot coherence, or even basic common sense --- Scott has proved himself more than a little inept over the years.
Oh okay, thanks. So how come fans prefer the director's cut and the final cut over the theatrical, if most of them do not like Deckard being a replicant; since in the theatrical, he is not alluded to being a replicant?
Oh okay, thanks. So how come fans prefer the director's cut and the final cut over the theatrical, if most of them do not like Deckard being a replicant; since in the theatrical, he is not alluded to being a replicant?
I speak only for myself, not all of fandom.
But from what I have seen, most fans dislike the theatrical version because of the voiceover and the happy ending. There are also a lot of mistakes in the theatrical version that the Final Cut fixed. Things like Zora's death scene being an obvious stunt double, Deckard's lips not matching his dialogue in some scenes, and Bryant mentioning another replicant that was in the original script but cut from the movie even before filming. The latter is one of the reasons that some people think Deckard was supposed to be that missing replicant. He wasn't. It was just a careless mistake. The other replicant was a character named Mary. They actually auditioned for the role, cast an actress, but she was cut before filming began. You can see her audition in some of the DVD special features.
Oh okay. I was wondering about the extra replicant that was mentioned, myself.
But why do fans like Zora's death being fixed, or like the shot of the flying bird being changed in the climax, but yet when Lucas messes with changing Star Wars footage, fans think it's sacrilegious?
How come such changes were more positively embraced with Blade Runner?
But why do fans like Zora's death being fixed, or like the shot of the flying bird being changed in the climax, but yet when Lucas messes with changing Star Wars footage, fans think it's sacrilegious?
Because many STAR WARS fans are escapees from Crazy Town.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
