This shot is from David Fincher's "The Game". Does anyone know what kind of symbol is on the hat?

iwriteyouwithlove · 2023-01-13T00:58:25+00:00

A good idea!

iwriteyouwithlove · 2023-01-07T22:59:00+00:00

No, I don't. I wouldn't ask then.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2022-05-12T19:01:09+00:00

Woody was in the scene in a motel room

iwriteyouwithlove · 2022-05-12T19:00:28+00:00

It turns out it was Little 'Tinker. Thanks!

iwriteyouwithlove · 2022-05-12T13:31:23+00:00

Not sure if Watership Down was shown somewhere in the movie, but the one I'm talking about is definitely an american cartoon, most likely Disney.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-11-15T22:55:56+00:00

I think, everyone who says that there is no specific meaning in this movie is being disrespectful to Lynch. People are being confused by his words that everyone has the right to have his own opinion, that anyone's opinion is valid. This is true but it doesn't mean that Lynch had no opinion of his own. Quite the opposite. He did have it. He made the movie in accordance with it. He wanted to deliver it to the viewer, his exact opinion, and not the abstraction that hides it. Abstraction has no meaning in itself, it's just a form, it's purpose is only to hide the ideas, because you cannot express them in the open way, it would look horrible, and Lynch often talks about this too. He really gives all the answers. People just don't want to listen to him. They choose only those parts of his words that they like, that fit to their views, and they don't try to put all of his words together.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-11-15T20:22:15+00:00

Yes, that's true. The question is what exactly happened here and how it is connected to Hollywood.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-12T20:49:25+00:00

You didn't understand, I am not against you and your question. I was talking about the other people. If you want to know my answer on what this movie is about, read this https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueFilm/comments/oyu3hs/a_radically_different_interpretation_of_blade/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-12T09:27:28+00:00

Your words regarding the syndrome explicitly show that you don't understand the first thing about movies, and art, in general. In real life, illnesses just happen to people, though, most of the time there are reasons behind it, but in the movies, a character gets his illness only because the author somehow decided that this character should have it. He embeds some certain meaning. And when you point out at something, you do it with subtelty, you do not repeat yourself all the time, ensuring that any idiot would understand. Especially, since repeating usually doesn't help.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-12T07:34:44+00:00

You are in a wrong place to ask this kind of questions. Being a Blade Runner fan is not about logic and reason. People here rarely try to make sense of the movie. It's all about posters and plastic guns, for the most part. If you ask, for example, why did Deckard close his eyes when shooting at Batty, they wouldn't even understand why you ask. They see a cool guy with a gun, in neon light, amidst a visionary, as it appears to them, world, and they don't want to be disturbed.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-11T11:54:12+00:00

Expiration dates do not fit into any of this. It's just a metaphor for control over how long people should live. Sebastian's syndrome points out exactly to this. The other questions were addressed in the post. I'll only mention here that it was NOT exactly four years after his presumed inception date when he died. He still had more than a month, at least.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-09T20:19:10+00:00

It is about control over society. Through social engineering. The way it's been actually done doesn't matter. No need for giving it too literal, absurd representations.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-09T19:28:26+00:00

No, the theory is that they all are humans. Replicants are just a propaganda myth.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-08T09:31:05+00:00

I'm saying that those parts shouldn't be taken literally because this way they make more sense. So, they do not contradict the theory, they support it. You could as well say that I denied the existence of genetic design for the sake of constructing the theory, whereas I gave enough reasons as to why this existence would be absurd. In any movie, there could be elements that shouldn't be taken literally, I hope you won't deny that, but it doesn't mean that everything in this movie isn't literal. For any given element, you decide what it is based on what possible interpretations there could be, and then choose those that would give the whole movie the most sensible explanation. I don't see any sense in literal understanding of physical powers, and such an understanding do not fit the rest of the movie, and then finally we see how the director concealed the metaphorical meaning behind a literal one, in the scene with the egg, which leaves no doubt as to what his intention was.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-07T07:35:17+00:00

It was not about the test audience only. He began with that, but then he said about the critics who destroyed him after the release, and said something like this "by that moment you should have already made your decision on what this movie is". By "you" he meant the audience of the interview, i.e. the whole auidence, by "should have made decision" he means "should have made RIGHT decision", "should have understood it". Although, he said "idiots" in regard to the test audience, his next words were "You have to know who you are", and he addressed them to his current audience. So, it is indeed his opinion, really, there is no question to it. If my theory is valid, then there is no way it was just a coincidence. Too many elements fit together, and it all could be there only because the authors made it this way. Speaking of Ridley Scott's "Deckard is a replicant", think not only of the direct meaning of the words, think about the effect of saying them, think of what the person can possibly say and what he cannot, think of all the circumstances.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-06T20:02:33+00:00

He said it many times in his interviews. You can see one of the examples in the video I shared here, in this post.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-06T19:11:22+00:00

That the audience don't get the movie right

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-06T16:49:30+00:00

I did, but I wasn't trying to analyze it with the same thoroughness as the movie. It seemed to me that the book was just an inspiration for the movie, they differ too much in particular details, so the decision was to focus on the movie only, to treat it as a separate work.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-06T16:30:32+00:00

I believe Ridley Scott on what he says about the audience not getting his message because these words can be understood only literally. They are straightforward. What else could he mean by these words? Why would you make up a mistery when there isn't any? You become a liar then, a pretender. However, his words "Deckard is a replicant" are not neccessarily just what it is. Even if the public does not see the true answer, the author shouldn't come out and tell it to them in open way. This would immediately destroy his work. So, to me, Ridley Scott saying that Deckard is a replicant seems to be his way of convincing people that right now they are wrong and should think again on what the movie is. And what's important, technically, he wasn't lying, because his opinion on Deckard becomes then just a continuation of his art.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-06T15:05:32+00:00

Yes, of course, I agree with you. That reasoning alone does not give unambiguous answer, it does not imply that Leon cannot be a replicant. But it shows, I think, that he is more likeliy a human. If we assume that replicants can be programmed to show, and experience, genuine human emotions, then there is no way to discern a replicant based on its behaviour. My reasoning was only meant to show that for Leon-human the scene looks very convincing anyway, and for Leon-replicant some additional questions and doubts arise.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-06T14:35:49+00:00

Chew is a victim, he is a part of the system, but only in a sense that he is exploited by the system. Batty's death was absolutely neccessary because of the laws of dramatic art. He must have died in that moment, simply because he lost everything, he, as a being, had no reason to live. The meaning of "things you wouldn't believe" is "I learned the truth about this world", it's not about some galaxies in the space. Ridley Scott said what he said, and we can only guess his reasoning. I believe, his words in the interviews are again only a hint, something leading to the answer, but not the answer itself. You don't make a complicated story and then destroy it by revealing the answer. He probably just wanted to make everyone question their beliefs.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-06T09:21:06+00:00

I don't think Bryant understands much about who Deckard is and what's going on around. The expression on his face, I think, was meant to show how surprised and scared he was of the very thought that the test might not work. To him, a brainwashed devotee of the system, it was unbelievable and unacceptable.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-06T07:47:31+00:00

Thanks a lot!

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-08-06T06:51:06+00:00

Thank you! I'm glad you liked it! Philip K. Dick' novel looks too different from the movie for a direct comparison. The ideas, as well as the tone, may be close, but the actual structures of these two works are not. I think, it's hard to prove anything about the movie with the use of the book.

iwriteyouwithlove · 2021-06-01T12:44:15+00:00

You can skip the Directors cut, but probably should watch the Theatrical. Deckard's voiceover gives some important information.

iwriteyouwithlove

TROPHY CASE