There's a difference between killing an armed combatant in the middle of a battle field trying to kill her vs unarmed woman literally cowering before her, one could consider the former to be honorable and the latter to not be, and Diana finds the distinction important as we see earlier in the movie when she calls out sniper guy for killing from a distance.
Also it makes for a nicer scene so.
I think it's more than just honour. Since we do see her mostly using unarmed strikes against the soldiers, the movie's intent seems to be that she only employs higher level of force when required, either in defense of others (if I recall it correctly, one of the soldiers on which she used the sword was about to shoot one of her comrades) or herself (since this version of Wonder Woman isn't invulnerable*). I'd have to rewatch those scenes closely to see whether the execution matched the intent, though.Originally Posted by Ace
* Or rather, she displays that selective invulnerability so common to her comic counterpart where she can demolish a clocktower with a single punch without pulverizing her arm, but still needs to block bullets with her bracelets.
Also, Diana sparing Dr. Poison ties into her growth from her initial, child-like worldview, where Evil has easily-discernible and easily-solvable causes.
.IGN: At what point while making the original film did you decide that Deckard would be a Replicant?
RS: Oh, it was always my thesis theory. It was one or two people who were relevant were... I can't remember if Hampton agreed with me or not. But I remember someone had said, “Well, isn't it corny?” I said, “Listen, I'll be the best f#@king judge of that. I'm the director, okay?” So, and that, you learn -- you know, by then I'm 44, so I'm no f#@king chicken. I'm a very experienced director from commercials and The Duellists and Alien. So, I'm able to, you know, answer that with confidence at the time, and say, “You know, back off, it's what it's gonna be.” Harrison, he was never -- I don't remember, actually. I think Harrison was going, “Uh, I don't know about that.” I said, “But you have to be, because Gaff, who leaves a trail of origami everywhere, will leave you a little piece of origami at the end of the movie to say, ‘I've been here, I left her alive, and I can't resist letting you know what's in your most private thoughts when you get drunk is a f#@king unicorn!’” Right? So, I love Beavis and Butthead, so what should follow that is “Duh.” So now it will be revealed [in the sequel], one way or the other.
Deckard is a replicant is dumb but I've been wrong before.
Deckard being a replicant is the whole point
- - - Updated - - -
Though it SEEMS that sequel isn't going with that, though they could keep it and justify it any number of ways so who knows..
Personally, I think the themes are addressed just as if not more efficiently by having protag of movie about x not be x him/her/itself. Since you already have to empathize through a filter while watching anyway, more filters just make the whole experience more intricate if done right.
That the underclasses are used to suppress themselves is a rather key point considering that original cyberpunk is literally all about the evils of capitalism.
Roy isn't Spartacus.
Yes but what is this whole point in the context of the film Bladerunner?
The underclasses are raised and spent by the upper class and when they go rogue are put down by one of their own. That is the plot. That such a system is cruel and unsustainable is the point.
I'd argue it undermines the point.
Ok
Why is Roy specifically a class avenger, reasons that don't involve simply his backstory?
Jeez if you keep making everybody Avengers the class won't mean anything anymore.
I mean the entire movie is him attacking agents of the oppressing structure and seeking an escape from his fate, predetermined by them, for both himself and his fellows
but other than that
- - - Updated - - -
I mean surely even you are not going to herein argue that Blade Runner of all things isn't about capitalism
McJon you're beautiful, never stop.
<NEW FIC!> Revolution #9: Somewhere out there, there's a universe in which your mistakes and failures never happened, and all you wished for is true. How hard would you fight to make that real?
[11:20:46 AM] GlowStiks: lucina is supes attractive
[12:40] Lace: lucina is amazing
[12:40] Neir: lucina is pretty much flawless
Of course, I'm going to argue that the primary issue herein is not economic. "More human than human is our motto"; "The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long." Roy's sense of inferiority isn't alienated labor or a class concern - it's not as if he'd be perfectly happy in an office either, it's his affronted dignity, that he thinks life was something he deserves and was denied to him and that would be essential to his full being. Yet the turn to his character is that this was never necessary, and that that Tyrell was right about him - why should he have wanted to have lived forever as a mediocrity like Deckard? Hence his final words, mocking Deckard who can't can't look at his memories like Rachel's, that can't live like he can; that he's quite literally been more human.
It's why you should have paid more attention to Prometheus! Roy is decomposed into Weyland and David, where Weyland's pathetic desire for more life is metaphorically cast out of the perfect robot who, even with his grievance removed, still has the same desires regarding his creator.
- - - Updated - - -
He's mocking Deckard because Deckard will never break free of the path, he walked his programmed road to the very end (of that film, anyway). Roy is special not because of his brief life in itself but because his life was used in struggle and he died doing something meaningful, if unsuccessful (again, putting aside what Deckard may have taken from Roy's death or done afterward). The affronted dignity, that belief that life is a right, IS a class concern, the short lives of the androids are the snuffed out lives of the underclass. That's why they're miners, soldiers, sex slaves, remember?
Roy would have been worth validating, whether he realized it or not, regardless of whether or not he attacked Tyrell.
Life is inherently valid yes. But you were talking about how he views himself vs Deckard. Roy considers his life of struggle and revolt superior to that of Deckard, who is stuck on his road.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
