Quote:
Originally Posted by Gylfi  Sure He has doubts... just to add more philosophical meaning... Are men humans anymore?
In the story another blade runner runs V-K on Deckard, just because He's not sure about it... That solves everything I would say.
Being a literature teacher I believe that if Deckard were UNdoubtedly human, the tale would have felt a bit less interesting...inserting doubts and uncertainties is a clever strategic writing stratagem to stir things up. |
Yeah I agree with that, the main point of the story is the uncertainy rather than whether Deckard is or isnt a replicant. I'd guess that part of the reason Ridley Scott leaned towards him being one is that it allowed for that uncertainy to be put across in a more visual way
Quote:
I disagree completely. He who has the intellectual property of the story and came up with it first is right. Sure You're free to take someone else's work and change stuff (IF the inventor doesn't sue you) but the father of the idea "dictates" what is true and original and what isn't.
Sure You can get Hamlet to call on Schwarzenegger and terminate the King of Denmark and love it (i would), but the original one is the TRUE one.
|
The writer obviously deserves credit/compensation when his work is used but I don't understand how you can say that any adaptation from the page to the screen is automatically invalid and inferior. Is that is any different than say someone coming up with a film script then a director or other screen writers making alterations, yes they often maybe for the worst but not automatically so.
In the case of something like Shakespear I agree any adaptation is never going to be considered the "true" version but thats due to the status of his works. I'd say the case here is exactly the opposite though as Scott's film is far more well known and praised than the book.