Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by FantasyIreland, 23 Mar 2014.
Brilliant film, time passed really quickly, possibly better the original
Final Cut has a couple of extra scenes which 'aid' the plot.
The unicorn scene for starters which explains the origami unicorn given to Ford
The dark tower, wasnt expecting much after some comments on here but I found it OK, 5.95/10
Blade Runner 2049. Film Noir at it's very best showing a dystopian nightmare of a future. It should sweep the Oscars for best Director, Cinematrography and Music probably both Best Supporting actor Oscars too. Slow but it has a plot and excellent Film Noir is never speedy - it doesn't feel long either (always a good sign).
Best Sci-fi film for years and years - a true masterpiece, and yes, IMO, better than the original or any of the re-cuts.
9.5 / 10
Interestingly, most of the first post-credit scene was originally scheduled to be part iof the first film but was dropped as it didn't fit with Deckard having "retired" due to having had enough of the slaughter.
Yes. Deckard finding the Oregami animal outside his door as he flees with Rachel. The final cut also has more frames leaning to Deckard possibly being a replicant himself - including the unicorn dream. I can't think he can be a replicant in 2049 if a replicant having a child breaks down the barriers between species. I guess one would have to ask Ridley Scott for the answer as Blade Runner was only based on the Philip K. Dick Novel - in which Deckard isn't an android and also owns an android goat.
A solid 8/10 for me don’t know if it was all the negative write up and what been said on here. It had me from the start to the end.
I can answer that directly. Scott definitely intended Deckard to be a replicant. He's on record saying it. But bizarrely - REALLY, staggeringly bizarrely - he had never read the book when he shot the film. He said he just couldn't get into it. How bonkers is that??!!
*** Spoiler Alert - Do not read on ****
In the new film, it's actually slightly more ambiguous, although I think the strong implication is that he is.
Your reasoning why he can't be is flawed. K's boss doesn't know the father is a replicant. And Wallace wants the daughter because he wants to make replicants who can reproduce.
Disagree with you about the new film. There is zero evidence in the new film to say he is.
Sure, that what opinions are for ;-)
But my response above was to address your reasoning that he can't be, not giving you reasons why he is.
But to answer the latter, there's a few hints. First there's Deckard saying we were being hunted. Not Rachel was being hunted. Perhaps nothing but still thought provoking. Second there's Wallace saying how Deckard and Rachel's relationship had been planned. I can't remember the exact lines but I think there were hints in there.
I don't claim it's compelling, merely that it's a question and there were intriguing hints. I may go and see it again before the cinema run ends and I'll look out for others.