While I prefer the director’s cut, I think a good case could be made for giving BR the Criterion Brazil treatment, and I’m under the impression that’s what will be done with the upcoming box set: one DVD with the “original” version that most people first saw and another disc with the “director’s vision.” If Lucas had done that with the Star Wars trilogy to start with–instead of initially insisting that the “original” movies didn’t exist, and then semi-reversing himself and doing a re-release with inferior transfers of the originals–he might have looked like a bit of a hero instead of an arrogant jerk.

Michael: I think I’m very much in agreement with you. It’s interesting as a writing issue, not an orientation issue, if it’s not in the text it’s not really there, and Ceej is spot-on except that he thinks there are clues in Grindelwald that I just missed entirely. Rowling may have accidentally proven that authorial intent can’t be the controlling thing, since the logical extension of that gets fairly absurd fairly quickly.

I also have to think that the idea of “authorial canon” almost has to be a recent side-effect of mass-communications and copyright extensions. I have to wonder if Dickens would have even thought he owned any of his characters to the extent a lot of commentators seem to be assuming is the case to the point that they consider the alternative “absurd.” And writers like Lovecraft gloried in being ripped off, encouraging pastiche and viewing it as a complement. But those were days in which copyrights were short, and an author’s speech about his latest book was heard by a few hundred people at most.

Whether Dumbledore is gay is a separate issue. I read the story when I saw the headline, so I guess I must have some interest, but to me Dumbledore is pretty much an asexual character. Then again, I didn’t care much for the whole Ariana/Grindelwald backstory.

I saw the original Blade Runner, but neither of the newer editions. I’ve heard the newer ones make for a better film. I’m not sure how the implication that Deckard could be a replicant would matter much. Actually, I think it would weaken the ending (keep in mind I haven’t seen the revised ending) in that Deckard’s motive for fleeing with Rachael could be considered less pure if he thought he himself might be a replicant.

It’s similar to the question of whether you-know-who is a you-know-what in Blade Runner.

Then again, you link to Time magazine, which flat out quotes, “Dumbledore is gay.” I would tend to trust Time, as they have fact-checkers and rarely take quotes out of context.

I find the whole issue about as interesting as the debate on whether or not Wagner’s music is anti-Semitic. That is, it can be interesting, but just barely.