It’s nice to hear how stunned and shocked you guys were that Ridley Scott said out loud that Deckard was a (* spoiler deletion *), but Scott explicitly confirmed this back in 2000. It’s not news. Here’s the BBC story:
Yes, I do remember that huge announcement back in 2000 and it made me fall back and go — NO WAY! But, you have to understand that:
1. It came from the BBC back almost 8 years ago, before web surfing for international news was as big and wide spread as it is now.
2. There were no vast reaching geek-centric shows and news services such as Slice of SciFi, G4, or SciFi Wire to ensure that the rest of mankind heard about it.
3. It was reported only once, and being scifi related, nothing else was heard about it.
This is the first time that Scott made such an announcement at an event (2007 Comic Con) that would reach the entire global scifi centered community in one-fell swoop; so naturally, the impact would be far more reaching and important for that reason alone. Not to mention the entirely new audience he would be reaching with the revelation.
7+ years can make a world of difference on who hears and doesn’t hear any kind of story.
I had no idea that Ridley Scott had ever confirmed it, and I occassionally read the BBC News website back then, and never once saw that article.
I’ve heard of other discussions on the topic since then, by net savvy people, and I know based on the discussion that no one involved in the debate knew anything about Scott’s announcement.
If he’d made that statement at con, ANY con on either side of the pond, then it would have made a splash in all the right puddles, one that I would have caught wind of and remembered.
But I’d love to see that documentary they’re talking about… I don’t think it ever aired over here.
I’m going to watch both versions again, but I never got the impression that Tyrell had any idea that Deckard was a replicant. And, personally, I liked the narrative. Ridley always seemed to have a hard-on against it.
The cop on Charlie Jade did remind me of the cop played by Almos in Blade Runner. Which given the shear number of beautiful women in Jade, the show should have been picked up for that alone.
I guess it comes down to the lack of reverse influence other news services have on the US. Personally, I was living in Australia back in 2000, and the BBC article was commonly known about amongst my peer group at the time. I’m kind of surprised it has taken this long to filter into the sci-fi community in the States.
I have to agree that this is pretty old news. I remember the story being all over the place at the time. I know I saw it on Slashdot, Ain’t it Cool News, and at least one DVD news site. I’m sure I saw it mentioned on TV. It’s on IMBD and it’s been on wikipedia since 2002.
Here’s a clip that I assume is the documentary discussed.
Not sure about the wikipedia part being there since 2002. One of our listeners told us she just updated Wikipedia to include that info after listening to our live feed of the recording on show #120 last Thursday evening.
I think we can all agree that the revelation by Scott at the 2007 Comic Con wasn’t a new one…but for the majority of scifi folk it was. I remember his BBC announcement nearly 8 years ago…..but hell, that was 8 years ago and things will get lost in the quaqmire I call this brain of mine, so it took me a moment or two to remember it. I do know that in 2000 it didn’t make near the splash that it made in 2007.
Not sure about the wikipedia part being there since 2002.
Nice thing about wikipedia is that you can see old versions: 19:05, 12 July 2002
Of course it may have been removed and re-added since then.
I believe you that people didn’t know about it. I just remember it was absolutely everywhere at the time (it seemed that way to me) and being pretty sick of hearing about it.
Jason, it’s obvious from all the comments (and some of the emails I’m getting), as well as the poll response, that we here at Slice apparently didn’t all know about it — or at least had forgotten about it over the waning years since it was first announced at the turn of the century. 😉
i’ve never understood why there was any question – he particularly had deckard’s eyes glowing red in one scene. if that wasn’t a direct statement i don’t know what is.
of course, the film doesn’t make any sense at all, which is probably why there’s a discussion in the first place.
I’m utterly shocked…that this was reported as news. Next they’ll be claiming that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father! I suggest that those of you who still aren’t convinced that Deckard is a replicant, 16 years after the release of the Director’s Cut, read Paul M. Sammon’s “Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner.” It’s either that, or Ridley Scott has to replace the Off World slogans on the advertising blimp with “Deckard is a replicant!” in big, neon letters.
Lane if you actually read the book you would know that `Deckard is replicant’ is at odds with the novel and why the discussion gets heated.
Maybe in the new version they will add:
Loosely based on `Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’ and when we say loosely we really mean loosely, not even close, christ we even made the hero a replicant that how little we care about the plot of the novel…
lol! absolutely true. though im not a big fan of the novel so it doesn’t bother me (although i think deckard being a rep is ridiculous). i think the screen story is a much better idea, just not very well executed.
So, in order to finally get the original theatrical version of this movie, I’ve got to buy it in a box set with Scott’s voice-over free, Deckard is a replicant revisionist history crap?
It’s nice to hear how stunned and shocked you guys were that Ridley Scott said out loud that Deckard was a (* spoiler deletion *), but Scott explicitly confirmed this back in 2000. It’s not news. Here’s the BBC story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/825641.stm
Yes, I do remember that huge announcement back in 2000 and it made me fall back and go — NO WAY! But, you have to understand that:
1. It came from the BBC back almost 8 years ago, before web surfing for international news was as big and wide spread as it is now.
2. There were no vast reaching geek-centric shows and news services such as Slice of SciFi, G4, or SciFi Wire to ensure that the rest of mankind heard about it.
3. It was reported only once, and being scifi related, nothing else was heard about it.
This is the first time that Scott made such an announcement at an event (2007 Comic Con) that would reach the entire global scifi centered community in one-fell swoop; so naturally, the impact would be far more reaching and important for that reason alone. Not to mention the entirely new audience he would be reaching with the revelation.
7+ years can make a world of difference on who hears and doesn’t hear any kind of story.
I had no idea that Ridley Scott had ever confirmed it, and I occassionally read the BBC News website back then, and never once saw that article.
I’ve heard of other discussions on the topic since then, by net savvy people, and I know based on the discussion that no one involved in the debate knew anything about Scott’s announcement.
If he’d made that statement at con, ANY con on either side of the pond, then it would have made a splash in all the right puddles, one that I would have caught wind of and remembered.
But I’d love to see that documentary they’re talking about… I don’t think it ever aired over here.
I’m going to watch both versions again, but I never got the impression that Tyrell had any idea that Deckard was a replicant. And, personally, I liked the narrative. Ridley always seemed to have a hard-on against it.
The cop on Charlie Jade did remind me of the cop played by Almos in Blade Runner. Which given the shear number of beautiful women in Jade, the show should have been picked up for that alone.
okay can someone tell me, wasnt it in the book that there was a unicorn? or am I mixing my movies again?
great interview too, that one of darcy’s favorite actors. I like that the man is so humble and down to earth. Wish alot more in hollywood were.
tim
I guess it comes down to the lack of reverse influence other news services have on the US. Personally, I was living in Australia back in 2000, and the BBC article was commonly known about amongst my peer group at the time. I’m kind of surprised it has taken this long to filter into the sci-fi community in the States.
I have to agree that this is pretty old news. I remember the story being all over the place at the time. I know I saw it on Slashdot, Ain’t it Cool News, and at least one DVD news site. I’m sure I saw it mentioned on TV. It’s on IMBD and it’s been on wikipedia since 2002.
Here’s a clip that I assume is the documentary discussed.
Not sure about the wikipedia part being there since 2002. One of our listeners told us she just updated Wikipedia to include that info after listening to our live feed of the recording on show #120 last Thursday evening.
I think we can all agree that the revelation by Scott at the 2007 Comic Con wasn’t a new one…but for the majority of scifi folk it was. I remember his BBC announcement nearly 8 years ago…..but hell, that was 8 years ago and things will get lost in the quaqmire I call this brain of mine, so it took me a moment or two to remember it. I do know that in 2000 it didn’t make near the splash that it made in 2007.
Not sure about the wikipedia part being there since 2002.
Nice thing about wikipedia is that you can see old versions: 19:05, 12 July 2002
Of course it may have been removed and re-added since then.
I believe you that people didn’t know about it. I just remember it was absolutely everywhere at the time (it seemed that way to me) and being pretty sick of hearing about it.
Keep up the good work!
Jason, it’s obvious from all the comments (and some of the emails I’m getting), as well as the poll response, that we here at Slice apparently didn’t all know about it — or at least had forgotten about it over the waning years since it was first announced at the turn of the century. 😉
I’ll have to concour with the ‘yea he said that a while ago’ crowd. I still think Ridley’s full of it. 🙂
i’ve never understood why there was any question – he particularly had deckard’s eyes glowing red in one scene. if that wasn’t a direct statement i don’t know what is.
of course, the film doesn’t make any sense at all, which is probably why there’s a discussion in the first place.
No unicorn in the book.
I’m utterly shocked…that this was reported as news. Next they’ll be claiming that Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father! I suggest that those of you who still aren’t convinced that Deckard is a replicant, 16 years after the release of the Director’s Cut, read Paul M. Sammon’s “Future Noir: The Making of Blade Runner.” It’s either that, or Ridley Scott has to replace the Off World slogans on the advertising blimp with “Deckard is a replicant!” in big, neon letters.
Lane if you actually read the book you would know that `Deckard is replicant’ is at odds with the novel and why the discussion gets heated.
Maybe in the new version they will add:
Loosely based on `Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep’ and when we say loosely we really mean loosely, not even close, christ we even made the hero a replicant that how little we care about the plot of the novel…
@vanamonde
lol! absolutely true. though im not a big fan of the novel so it doesn’t bother me (although i think deckard being a rep is ridiculous). i think the screen story is a much better idea, just not very well executed.
So, in order to finally get the original theatrical version of this movie, I’ve got to buy it in a box set with Scott’s voice-over free, Deckard is a replicant revisionist history crap?
No thanks.
Deckard is a man, baby!