I dont know (might be worth reading up on any academic stuff on this actually)
But I'd imagine it has something to do with the implied or alluded to backstory of any film, and then the implied or more often than not 'open' possible future once the credits roll. So when you have a cult film such as Blade Runner its very difficult to create a story which will please the vast majority of fan's preconceptions as to what the surrounding storylines should be like (is Deckard a replicant or not?) and if a film is 'officially' part of a Blade Runner series it then potentialy makes those fan's preconceived ideas of what the surrounding stories are null and void?. Thus Trekkies getting their knickers in a twist over the recent film (what does this mean for the 'Cannon' of Star Trek, is it part of the 'Cannon'?, and woe betide anyone who suggests the 'Cannon' could be wrong ;) ) So like with Star Trek, I loved the new film because I didn't have as much invested in the old TV series as Trekkies do. Personaly with Blade Runner though, its one of my favourite films, so messing about with the backstory etc. worries me. Especialy as the ending is so ambiguous, if you then set in stone that Deckard is or isn't a replicant that impacts your reading of the original. Of course for some one that hasn't seen the original, or wasn't that into it they wont care, and will probably enjoy having an entire backstory etc spoon fed to them?
(
Jorvic, Thu 3 Mar 2011, 17:00,
Share,
Reply)