Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Jan 30, 2008 19:40:31 GMT -4
As usual there were a lot of angles in the book that got left behind in making the film. An interesting one was the back to nature religion that made a virtue of owning an animal, even if you could only afford an artificial one. That was only very briefly alluded to in the film, and then only if you knew it should have been there...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 30, 2008 19:50:57 GMT -4
That has to do with the fact that in the book there had been a nuclear war - World War Terminus - and most animals had been killed off from fallout. The owls were one of the first to go - by eating rats and mice they built up lethal levels of fallout quickly. There are obvious reflections of that in the movie (all the artificial animals), without it being stated outright.
In the book Pris finds a live spider and Sebastian (who is not a geneticist in the book) watches in horror as she tears its legs off, apparently out of simple boredom.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jan 30, 2008 21:01:09 GMT -4
I voted that Deckard was human, just because I have the original DVD release and I didn't detect anything that suggested he wasn't. I didn't think Dumbledore was gay, either. ;D
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Jan 31, 2008 0:55:04 GMT -4
Is Dumbledore a replicant?
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jan 31, 2008 1:23:53 GMT -4
I voted that it didn't matter, though that isn't quite what I mean. What I mean is that what matters is what you bring to it. I've not read the book (yet; it's on the shelf), but I did watch the movie. (According to my review, the director's cut, so not the final cut.) Relatively recently. (Almost a year ago, which means some 400 movies ago. But still.) While it is important to Deckard whether he is or not, I don't think it's nearly so important to us. Part of it is that I think we're seeing it from a different place than Deckard. But part of it is that, at the end, we all come to an end. We have more in common with the replicators than we know; I think that's the point. (For those interested in what I had to say at the time, my review's at www.rottentomatoes.com/vine/journal_view.php?journalid=246086&entryid=401909&view=public.)
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jan 31, 2008 2:07:29 GMT -4
Well funny thing, I just picked up the 5-Disc Collector's set. After I watch all 5 versions I might be able to reconsider my vote.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 31, 2008 12:01:07 GMT -4
Some possible explanations for how Roy knows Deckard's name during the end game of the movie:
1) Deckard identifies himself to the police who converge after he kills Zhora. Leon is seen in the crowd watching. It's possible that Leon goes and finds a phone booth to give Roy a call (cell phones being absent in 2019), says "Zhora was just killed by a bladerunner named Deckard. I'm going to go take him out," and then gets back to Deckard in time to have their fight. Roy would then know that Zhora had been killed by a man named Deckard, and when he finds a bladerunner at Sebastian's apartment he guesses that it must be the same one who killed Zhora.
2) The other possibility is that Roy found out Deckard's name in the process of discovering what happened to Leon and Zhora. We see Roy and Leon interrogating Chew before Deckard kills those two, and the next time Roy appears he is telling Pris that there are only two of them left, so he must have found out something of what happened to Leon and Zhora. Maybe someone Roy asked knew who Deckard was from his old bladerunner days, or was part of the crowd around Zhora's killing and heard Deckard identify himself.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 31, 2008 12:20:52 GMT -4
Yes, both of those possibilities had occurred to me. Personally I find #1 the more plausible one. I only included the "Roy knows his name" argument as it is one of the ones that was common to the lists I have seen, and while the explanations above both have possibilities, it is never explained in the movie how Batty would know his name. Also, please understand that I am not saying that I am right in my choice to believe that Deckard is a replicant, nor am I conceding that those who believe he is human are right either. There is enough evidence for both sides and everyone is entitled to believe whichever side they feel best fits their interpretations. Cz
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 31, 2008 12:34:27 GMT -4
Also it doesn't make any sense that Roy would know Deckard's name if Deckard were a replicant. If Deckard is a replicant then he must be some sort of top-secret experiment in hunting replicants with replicants, as you theorized earlier. If so, then how would a random off-world combat replicant learn the human name of the experimental replicant hunter in LA?
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 31, 2008 13:24:11 GMT -4
I remember some time ago there was some theory floating around that Deckard was actually one of the six Nexus 6's that came back to Earth with Batty et al and was captured trying to get into Tyrell Corp, then "reprogrammed" to become Deckard. I believe this theory came about as a sort of round about way to explain the continuity error / plot hole (fixed in the Final Cut) where Bryant says six replicants came back, but only ever talked about 5.
It was an interesting idea at the time, but I don't think it ever explained why Batty or any of the others didn't appear to recognize Deckard or try to get him to remember who he "really" was.
Cz
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 31, 2008 14:22:44 GMT -4
The continuity error was because they cut the fifth replicant, Mary, and her fight with Deckard (in which Deckard was to kill yet another female replicant) from the script. Bryant's count of five replicants from earlier got missed.
Even if the error were still in the film, it would be a pretty convoluted theory, as you say. Why use a possibly dangerous experimental repogramming technique on one of them if you already have a bladerunner on hand, in the form of Holden? Doesn't Bryant say that the break-in of Tyrell corp was three days before he calls Deckard into his office? That's not a lot of time to decide to use a replicant to hunt his fellows, "memory-implant" him and create a false apartment and history for him. If the replicants knew Deckard, then surely Zhora would recognize him immediately and not play along with him as long as she did.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 31, 2008 18:04:07 GMT -4
The continuity error was because they cut the fifth replicant, Mary, and her fight with Deckard (in which Deckard was to kill yet another female replicant) from the script. Bryant's count of five replicants from earlier got missed. Yes, I know... Yep... like I said... I remember it from a while back, at least 6 or 7 years ago, and I haven't seen it anywhere else since then. Mind you, given the number of sites devoted to the movie, its bound to still be out there somewhere... Cz
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 31, 2008 18:12:04 GMT -4
I thought you probably knew, but I didn't know if others reading the thread knew, so I figured I would put the explanation in. And one other problem with the idea - surely they wouldn't let the reprogrammed replicant keep his name. That would just give him a hand in recovering his original memories. So after all the rigmarole of that theory you're no closer with answering how Roy knew Deckard's name.
|
|
|
Post by Czero 101 on Jan 31, 2008 18:23:17 GMT -4
Agreed... I wasn't presenting this last one (or the whole name issue, really) as any sort of proof for "my side", just as an example of some of the other ways people have tried to explain certain things.
As said before, with this issue, there's a lot of evidence for both sides to be correct and for both sides to be false. Its a matter of interpretation and of how one answers the question of what it is to be human.
For me, its a more intriguing story to have Deckard as a replicant. For you and others, it a better story with him as a human. Neither opinion is necessarily wrong.
Cz
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jan 31, 2008 18:30:58 GMT -4
I'm curious. Why do you find Deckard as a replicant a more intriguing story? What does it add?
|
|