From: nsmca@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Not to beat a dead horse...
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Sun, 13 Dec 1992 22:21:42 GMT

In article <1992Dec6.165225.20423@panix.com>, jis@panix.com (Jack Szwergold) writes:
> In <8f8Nf8G00WB=NZKYk2@andrew.cmu.edu> Patrick C Leger <pl1u+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
> 
>>Not to beat a dead horse (even more), but I just saw the director's cut
>>to Bladerunner...'twas quite a bit better than the normal version. 
>>After all the discussion on here about the unicorn scene, I was sure to
>>pay attention to details around it.  It seems to me that the unicorn
>>represented the animals that had become extinct, and possibly man's
>>creations (myths, in this case), and it served to remind Deckard of
>>another non-existant animal--the snake, the scale of which he'd found.  
>>But then again, maybe it was just a phallic symbol :).
> 
> That could be true.  But most of the evidence pints to that scene being
> put in as extra evidence as to Dekkard really being a replicant.
> When he is getting Rachel at the end of the film, he finds a oragami
> unicorn on the floor that Gaff had made (prsumably).  Why would Gaff leave
> a clue like that?  Because he knows Dekkards profile (the implants and
> such) like the way Rick knew about Rachels childhood.  Ridley Scott has
> said in interviews that in his original cut, he intended that the audience
> be hinted in subtly that Dekkard was a replicant.  When the studio cut
> went out, the scene was removed because the marketing morons thought that
> putting such a scene in (The Unicorn Dream), and telling the viewers that
> Dekkard wasn't really a "hero" but just another replicant would be way
> over their heads.  They wanted a hero, and by recutting the film so that
> scene was left out made it less obvious that Dekkard was anything but a hero.
> Other evidence that points to Dekkards being a replicant are....
> 	All replicants in the film had "glowing eyes" (red eye) in at
> least one scene..... Dekkard included (this scene is the one when he and
> Rachel go back to his place after he has the run in with Zora and Leon)
> 	When he is half drunk/asleep at the piano, you see tons of
> pictures on the piano.  Those weren't Leons.  Those were Deakkards, and
> they were ancient pictures (like from the turn of the century/1900s)  Why
> would someone have pictures like that in 2019?  I don't know too many
> people in 1992 who have pictures as old as that......
I have pictures of family from the turn of the century of my great-grand
parents.. and some people who have old family roots have pictures from the
civil war.. 


> 	When he is looking at the fake picture of Rachel when she is a
> child with her mom, for a second or so, the picture "comes to life"
> (shadows move, and trees sway). Why would he be experiencing something
> like with a picture that he never saw/experienced before.
> 	
> 
> Welp, I guess I've started a debate.  BBut remember. Scott wanted the
> "dekard is a replicant" stuff to be subtle, so even if you didn't "get it"
> you can appreciate the story for what it was......
> 
> For a good overview of the production of Blade Runner, pick up the Oct.
> 1992 issue of Details magazine (with Nicholas Cage on the cover).  The
> editorial in that isssue is devoted to Blade Runners influence and
> importance also.....
> 
> 
> Nice to see it get mainstream recognition....
> -- 
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Jack
> jis@panix.com  -<located in lovely N.Y.C.>-
> "I may have been f**ked by sex/But I've been blessed by love"
Xref: sparky alt.cyberpunk:6720 sci.electronics:21002