EDIT: Yeah I never said canon, but I can see why you interpreted it the way you did. I could have been clearer. All I was saying was that two versions exist, with radically different interpretations, but one represents what the vision of the director was (I mean that as a neutral, no-value added statement). Given the nature of movie production, both these versions existed at essentially the same time. For ME 3 ending and possible end-changing DLC, unless they've had DLC planned from the start, the ending we got in the box was the original both in terms of time and intent and the future ending is something else, a second canon. One they initially planned for and created, and a second they made in reaction to the response to the first. Both can be equally valid, but only one represents what they initially wanted.
Well, first off, I don't think you can say that they both existed at the start. I don't know how it all went, but according to wiki, it was released 10 years after the original and 7 versions in total were released based on various marketing schemes. I highly,
HIGHLY doubt that Ridley's vision of the film didn't alter in ALL that time. Unless you believe a creator can maintain one solid vision one movie for an entire decade before he releases his own cut, changing nothing whatsoever, I don't think you can claim the movies existed at the same time, even in Ridley's mind. And if Ridley changed it because he didn't get his vision through the first time, that is a reaction to the audience as well. It's just that the reaction isn't bad like ME3's is. He tried to do something, realized he messed up when the audience didn't react to the product the way he wanted, and went back and fixed it. Really, the only thing you can say that Bioware (other than Ridley's motivations were more pure) would be doing differently than Ridley would be that instead of going back and editing various parts of the game, they'd simply be continuing on the story where we left off. Their methods differ, but the essence of what they are doing is the same.
But here's what I don't get. If you are saying that both of them are equally valid, except the directors cut has Ridley's intentions on it (which you say in your own words is "a neutral, no-value added" quality of the film), then what power does the author's intention hold again? You mocked me for disregarding authors intentions before. But now your admitting that the authors intentions really don't matter because despite the DC being the version that is inline with his original intentions, the scenes cut from the original still maintain their canon. As far as I can tell, the only distinction you make is that you acknowledge the DC has carries Ridley's intention more, but it's no better or valid for it than the other film. I acknowledged that too.
Edit: whoa, I somehow completely missed your post at the very top of the page. Apologies.
Yeah, I did a disservice by using the word official and other language which is rightfully interpreted to mean canon. That's all on me. This gets so complicated because director's cuts and the theatrical release are both cut from the same cloth so to speak, and games are not. Let's imagine there was no Director's Cut, just the ambiguous ending.
I would interpret it as ambiguous, and then I hear Ridley Scott say he meant for me to come to the Replicant conclusion. Upon watching the film again, I might, with this knowledge, see more signs that point to this than don't and agree. Or I might not see enough, that is, his original intent does not come across strongly enough in this cut to support an absolute interpretation.
I see ME 3 as different because it's not a case of the developer putting forward two ambiguous interpretations and saying he favors one, it's the developer putting a firm established ending on it and saying he never even designed it with ambiguity at all. It would be like watching the Director's Cut of Blade Runner and trying to say it was still ambiguous.
I think you're right in that I didn't make my points clear enough to avoid this kind of confusion though, so sorry. ED: I'm going to bed now, not ignoring you in case you keep posting
.
Well, The Director's cut is suppose to be explicitly emphasizing the Replicant ending, isn't it? With or without Ridley's statement, it seems like it's suppose to be the most enforced interpretation of the movie, so you'd probably come to this conclusion regardless of what ridley says. But if you watch the original ending, your saying you still might not interpret the way he wanted, even though you know that's what he intended. That's...evaluating the product itself. You consider the authors intent, but ultimately YOU decide what it means. You interpret the DC as the replicant ending because that's what the product emphasizes, not what ridley says. You'd make a stronger argument for author intention if you interpreted the original with Ridley's intent despite the ambiguity. The way you look at it, the fact that it's ridley doesn't seem to matter. If you meet a completely random fan, and he suggested the replicant interpretation, you'd be doing the exact same thing. Rewatching the movie with this in mind, but ultimately deciding for yourself whether the interpretation applies or not. In this sense, isn't Ridley's comment no more valid than any random fans?
Now, I will acknowledge that ME3 is a different case in that the interpretation would change rather than shift emphasis in the transition between main game and DLC. To this, I can say only 2 things.
1. The only reason your saying that ME3's straight forward ending is the real one is the author's commentary. If you can disregard Ridley's commentary on how the original ambiguous ending is not the real one because you don't feel it has enough evidence, then I don't see why you can't evaluate ME3 by itself and decide whether there is enough evidence to support the author's intention. Because the indoctrination theory makes far more sense than the straight forward theory right now and it has evidence for it. If you feel that the evidence is not enough, that's fine, but decide that on your own rather than because Bioware told you, the same way you decide whether the replicant ending fits on your own rather than because Ridley told you.
2. I will only say this: The story was not written by a single person. Consider the possibility that atleast someone on the team was going for the indoctrination theory, and urged these hints in the game, even though the main writer of the arc was out doing his own thing. So, if one person in bioware didn't intend it, but others did. They're not speaking up because they can't contradict the bosses, but what if these odd changes (like the music change in the destroy ending) were purposeful rather than strangely appropriate accidents? I'm not saying they are, I doubt that myself, but the possibility is there. You are inclined to take an ambiguous ending because of how the editor of the original movie changed things around, despite knowing what Ridley wanted. With this doubt in mind would, is it not reasonable to atleast be willing to admit that the indoctrination theory is
possible interpretation of the game if it's possible that the editors (however unlikely that may be) did intend it and are simply not saying so?
If you get around to reading this, you should probably PM me, as this discussion isn't strictly relevant to ME3's ending. It's more about the nature of canon.
