Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 11:19:14 GMT
I doubt he was meant to be one at first. But Ridley Scott did change the movie afterwards, adding the whole unicorn bit (if I'm not mistaken). It's that unicorn scene that makes people believe that Deckard is a replicant.
I guess the theory could be that Deckard never had a past before the moment the movie started. He's basically Holden, who got injured so they had to replace him. And Deckard was the man. It was never allowing him to 'quit the job', but creating a circumstance in which Deckard would believe that he was a cop, and get the job done.
The physical aspect could be explained by him being the latest model, crafted more like a human than the others who were never meant to be on Earth to begin with.
A shaky explanation, no doubt.
What is the significance of the Unicorn though? A Unicorn is a mythical creature. Why would this be a memory implant for Deckard and for what purpose? I think Ridley Scott was just being a bit of jerk and had sour grapes over his film failing initially. Deckard as a Blade Runner, doing his job as a human, made it more challenging and dangerous. I don't mind the director's cut or final cut at all, but the subplot is pretty much negligible anyway. It's a minor ambiguity.
This new Blade Runner 2049, brings up many other questions. It's also replicants against replicants, and who do we know who is really human anymore? Also, Replicants are creating other replicants.
Why did Rachael remember the spider in her bedroom? The idea was to create enough memories so the replicant would be more at ease, less likely to rebel against his fate.
The unicorn is a fantasy, much like Deckard himself, and also something that could not be mistaken at the end as a mere coincidence. There was no way Gaff could have left the unicorn there by accident.
Whether or not Scott should have left that out, I don't know. I like the idea that Deckard is a replicant himself, and that he's at peace with it at the end.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 23, 2017 11:26:11 GMT
What is the significance of the Unicorn though? A Unicorn is a mythical creature. Why would this be a memory implant for Deckard and for what purpose? I think Ridley Scott was just being a bit of jerk and had sour grapes over his film failing initially. Deckard as a Blade Runner, doing his job as a human, made it more challenging and dangerous. I don't mind the director's cut or final cut at all, but the subplot is pretty much negligible anyway. It's a minor ambiguity.
This new Blade Runner 2049, brings up many other questions. It's also replicants against replicants, and who do we know who is really human anymore? Also, Replicants are creating other replicants.
Why did Rachael remember the spider in her bedroom? The idea was to create enough memories so the replicant would be more at ease, less likely to rebel against his fate.
The unicorn is a fantasy, much like Deckard himself, and also something that could not be mistaken at the end as a mere coincidence. There was no way Gaff could have left the unicorn there by accident.
Whether or not Scott should have left that out, I don't know. I like the idea that Deckard is a replicant himself, and that he's at peace with it at the end.
Deckard's memory of the unicorn wasn't put into the movie until later, though. Even so, Gaff's unicorn was still on the floor as they were leaving (even in the original version). The look on Deckard's face said to me that Gaff had been there and could have killed Rachel. The door was open when Deckard got there, after all. Gaff had been there and decided to show mercy on Rachel. I think Deckard was acknowledging with his facial expression that Gaff had done a good thing, thank heavens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 11:29:14 GMT
Why did Rachael remember the spider in her bedroom? The idea was to create enough memories so the replicant would be more at ease, less likely to rebel against his fate.
The unicorn is a fantasy, much like Deckard himself, and also something that could not be mistaken at the end as a mere coincidence. There was no way Gaff could have left the unicorn there by accident.
Whether or not Scott should have left that out, I don't know. I like the idea that Deckard is a replicant himself, and that he's at peace with it at the end.
Deckard's memory of the unicorn wasn't put into the movie until later, though. Even so, Gaff's unicorn was still on the floor as they were leaving (even in the original version). The look on Deckard's face said to me that Gaff had been there and could have killed Rachel. The door was open when Deckard got there, after all. Gaff had been there and decided to show mercy on Rachel. I think Deckard was acknowledging with his facial expression that Gaff had done a good thing, thank heavens.
Exactly, Gaff let them leave unharmed. And originally the dream was not there, indeed. But add the dream and that final scene does alter. There's also the quote at the end by Gaff: "Too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?" Take out the dream and you get a reference to the fact that Rachael won't live for long, but ultimately that is life. Add the dream and, well, it does seem a bit more sinister.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 11:31:35 GMT
Why did Rachael remember the spider in her bedroom? The idea was to create enough memories so the replicant would be more at ease, less likely to rebel against his fate.
The unicorn is a fantasy, much like Deckard himself, and also something that could not be mistaken at the end as a mere coincidence. There was no way Gaff could have left the unicorn there by accident.
Whether or not Scott should have left that out, I don't know. I like the idea that Deckard is a replicant himself, and that he's at peace with it at the end.
I don't quite get what you mean by Deckard being fantasy himself. A unicorn is an unusual motif, if this was to hint a Deckard being a replicant. If Deckard is a replicant himself, why is he aged in 2049. Don't they just come with and keep the same package of how they are created?
If he's a replicant, then Deckard is pretty much a fantasy. Everything about him was created, hence the fantasy reference.
As for his aging, well, he wasn't the only one, I believe. The original movie had replicants with a very limited life span, no aging for them, there wasn't time for that. But they are made out of organic material, created, yes, but organic nonetheless. And everything organic ages.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 23, 2017 11:39:46 GMT
Deckard's memory of the unicorn wasn't put into the movie until later, though. Even so, Gaff's unicorn was still on the floor as they were leaving (even in the original version). The look on Deckard's face said to me that Gaff had been there and could have killed Rachel. The door was open when Deckard got there, after all. Gaff had been there and decided to show mercy on Rachel. I think Deckard was acknowledging with his facial expression that Gaff had done a good thing, thank heavens. Exactly, Gaff let them leave unharmed. And originally the dream was not there, indeed. But add the dream and that final scene does alter. There's also the quote at the end by Gaff: "Too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?" Take out the dream and you get a reference to the fact that Rachael won't live for long, but ultimately that is life. Add the dream and, well, it does seem a bit more sinister. The original movie with the voice-over said that Deckard had seen Rachel's info at Tyrell Corp and that she had no expiry date on her life. She was a more experimental version of Nexus 6. So I think Gaff said "too bad she won't live" to mean that he was heading over to kill her - but then didn't.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2017 11:50:04 GMT
Exactly, Gaff let them leave unharmed. And originally the dream was not there, indeed. But add the dream and that final scene does alter. There's also the quote at the end by Gaff: "Too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?" Take out the dream and you get a reference to the fact that Rachael won't live for long, but ultimately that is life. Add the dream and, well, it does seem a bit more sinister. The original movie with the voice-over said that Deckard had seen Rachel's info at Tyrell Corp and that she had no expiry date on her life. She was a more experimental version of Nexus 6. So I think Gaff said "too bad she won't live" to mean that he was heading over to kill her - but then didn't.
Ooh, I didn't remember that part. I'll have to watch that version with the voice-over again, that does change things.
But then, the later version cut that info out and added the dream scene, so in my opinion, Scott did want us to think that Deckard is a replicant. And that indeed was not the case in the original theater version.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 23, 2017 12:50:38 GMT
The original movie with the voice-over said that Deckard had seen Rachel's info at Tyrell Corp and that she had no expiry date on her life. She was a more experimental version of Nexus 6. So I think Gaff said "too bad she won't live" to mean that he was heading over to kill her - but then didn't.
Ooh, I didn't remember that part. I'll have to watch that version with the voice-over again, that does change things.
But then, the later version cut that info out and added the dream scene, so in my opinion, Scott did want us to think that Deckard is a replicant. And that indeed was not the case in the original theater version.
Yeah, I think Scott did want us to think of Deckard as a replicant, but he left it vague enough for some to disagree. (The original story did NOT have Deckard as a replicant.)
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 23, 2017 16:42:57 GMT
Exactly, Gaff let them leave unharmed. And originally the dream was not there, indeed. But add the dream and that final scene does alter. There's also the quote at the end by Gaff: "Too bad she won't live, but then again, who does?" Take out the dream and you get a reference to the fact that Rachael won't live for long, but ultimately that is life. Add the dream and, well, it does seem a bit more sinister. The original movie with the voice-over said that Deckard had seen Rachel's info at Tyrell Corp and that she had no expiry date on her life. She was a more experimental version of Nexus 6. So I think Gaff said "too bad she won't live" to mean that he was heading over to kill her - but then didn't. There's no reason to assume Gaff knows what Deckard knows about Rachael. Gaff's quote was most certainly referencing the short life span of replicants. The significance to the look on Deckard's face when he sees the origami unicorn changes, depending on the version of the film. The theatrical cut suggests simply that Gaff had been there, but let Rachael live. The DC and Final Cuts which include the unicorn dream changes the meaning of the unicorn entirely. Now it suggests that Gaff knows something only Deckard saw in his mind, which suggests it's an implant, making Deckard a replicant. Every version of the film hints at Deckard possibly being a replicant, but the DC and Final cuts imply it much more heavily. It's still ambiguous (despite Ridley Scott himself saying Deckard is a replicant) and open to interpretation, though.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 23, 2017 16:50:52 GMT
The original movie with the voice-over said that Deckard had seen Rachel's info at Tyrell Corp and that she had no expiry date on her life. She was a more experimental version of Nexus 6. So I think Gaff said "too bad she won't live" to mean that he was heading over to kill her - but then didn't. There's no reason to assume Gaff knows what Deckard knows about Rachael. Gaff's quote was most certainly referencing the short life span of replicants. The significance to the look on Deckard's face when he sees the origami unicorn changes, depending on the version of the film. The theatrical cut suggests simply that Gaff had been there, but let Rachael live. The DC and Final Cuts which include the unicorn dream changes the meaning of the unicorn entirely. Now it suggests that Gaff knows something only Deckard saw in his mind, which suggests it's an implant, making Deckard a replicant. Every version of the film hints at Deckard possibly being a replicant, but the DC and Final cuts imply it much more heavily. It's still ambiguous (despite Ridley Scott himself saying Deckard is a replicant) and open to interpretation, though. Deckard wasn't a replicant in the book, so I'm sticking with Philip on this.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 23, 2017 17:28:19 GMT
There's no reason to assume Gaff knows what Deckard knows about Rachael. Gaff's quote was most certainly referencing the short life span of replicants. The significance to the look on Deckard's face when he sees the origami unicorn changes, depending on the version of the film. The theatrical cut suggests simply that Gaff had been there, but let Rachael live. The DC and Final Cuts which include the unicorn dream changes the meaning of the unicorn entirely. Now it suggests that Gaff knows something only Deckard saw in his mind, which suggests it's an implant, making Deckard a replicant. Every version of the film hints at Deckard possibly being a replicant, but the DC and Final cuts imply it much more heavily. It's still ambiguous (despite Ridley Scott himself saying Deckard is a replicant) and open to interpretation, though. Deckard wasn't a replicant in the book, so I'm sticking with Philip on this. Sure, but the film is far from a direct adaptation of DADOES. Anyway, there is no right or wrong answer to the Deckard question, that's the beauty of it. I happen to believe he is a replicant but I cannot prove it with absolute certainty based on what we see. There's plenty of evidence to backup my claim but nothing truly definitive.
|
|
|
Post by Jep Gambardella on Oct 23, 2017 21:08:14 GMT
The original movie with the voice-over said that Deckard had seen Rachel's info at Tyrell Corp and that she had no expiry date on her life. She was a more experimental version of Nexus 6. So I think Gaff said "too bad she won't live" to mean that he was heading over to kill her - but then didn't. There's no reason to assume Gaff knows what Deckard knows about Rachael. Gaff's quote was most certainly referencing the short life span of replicants. The significance to the look on Deckard's face when he sees the origami unicorn changes, depending on the version of the film. The theatrical cut suggests simply that Gaff had been there, but let Rachael live. The DC and Final Cuts which include the unicorn dream changes the meaning of the unicorn entirely. Now it suggests that Gaff knows something only Deckard saw in his mind, which suggests it's an implant, making Deckard a replicant. Every version of the film hints at Deckard possibly being a replicant, but the DC and Final cuts imply it much more heavily. It's still ambiguous (despite Ridley Scott himself saying Deckard is a replicant) and open to interpretation, though. Nobody ever mentions that Gaff builds many other origami animals throughout the movie without them having any meaning. Why does the unicorn one necessarily mean that Gaff knew about Deckard's dreams?
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 23, 2017 22:53:39 GMT
There's no reason to assume Gaff knows what Deckard knows about Rachael. Gaff's quote was most certainly referencing the short life span of replicants. The significance to the look on Deckard's face when he sees the origami unicorn changes, depending on the version of the film. The theatrical cut suggests simply that Gaff had been there, but let Rachael live. The DC and Final Cuts which include the unicorn dream changes the meaning of the unicorn entirely. Now it suggests that Gaff knows something only Deckard saw in his mind, which suggests it's an implant, making Deckard a replicant. Every version of the film hints at Deckard possibly being a replicant, but the DC and Final cuts imply it much more heavily. It's still ambiguous (despite Ridley Scott himself saying Deckard is a replicant) and open to interpretation, though. Nobody ever mentions that Gaff builds many other origami animals throughout the movie without them having any meaning. Why does the unicorn one necessarily mean that Gaff knew about Deckard's dreams? Good point.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 23, 2017 23:52:53 GMT
There's no reason to assume Gaff knows what Deckard knows about Rachael. Gaff's quote was most certainly referencing the short life span of replicants. The significance to the look on Deckard's face when he sees the origami unicorn changes, depending on the version of the film. The theatrical cut suggests simply that Gaff had been there, but let Rachael live. The DC and Final Cuts which include the unicorn dream changes the meaning of the unicorn entirely. Now it suggests that Gaff knows something only Deckard saw in his mind, which suggests it's an implant, making Deckard a replicant. Every version of the film hints at Deckard possibly being a replicant, but the DC and Final cuts imply it much more heavily. It's still ambiguous (despite Ridley Scott himself saying Deckard is a replicant) and open to interpretation, though. Nobody ever mentions that Gaff builds many other origami animals throughout the movie without them having any meaning. Why does the unicorn one necessarily mean that Gaff knew about Deckard's dreams? First, I disagree with them not having any meaning. Deckard is refusing to take the job at the beginning and Gaff makes a chicken. Not too subtle. Anyway a unicorn is a very specific thing to make out of the blue. Of all the animals or shapes to choose from, Gaff makes the mythical animal Deckard dreamed about and it's supposed to be a coincidence?
As I said earlier, that's an argument you can make. Nobody flat out says Deckard is a replicant so it's open for interpretation. To me it makes much more sense that adding the unicorn dream implies heavily that Deckard is indeed a replicant.
|
|
|
Post by Rey Kahuka on Oct 24, 2017 0:11:58 GMT
First, I disagree with them not having any meaning. Deckard is refusing to take the job at the beginning and Gaff makes a chicken. Not too subtle. Anyway a unicorn is a very specific thing to make out of the blue. Of all the animals or shapes to choose from, Gaff makes the mythical animal Deckard dreamed about and it's supposed to be a coincidence?
As I said earlier, that's an argument you can make. Nobody flat out says Deckard is a replicant so it's open for interpretation. To me it makes much more sense that adding the unicorn dream implies heavily that Deckard is indeed a replicant.
If Deckard is a replicant, why doesn't he have replicant strength in the first one? He is tracking down dangerous creatures with superhuman strength and it wasn't easy for him. In this new one, he is aged— what gives here—and yet he now appears to have more superhuman strength when he is fighting with K, when he first encounters him. If he is he could be a nexus -7, like Rachael is now thought to be. Ridley Scott discusses this in the book Future Noir, but it isn't established fact in the canon by any means. Just speculation. They clearly have different characteristics from the nexus-6. If Rachael can give birth I think it's safe to say anything goes with that model.
I've only seen 2049 once and I don't remember Deckard displaying superhuman strength in that fight. He's slugging K to minimal effect and K eventually convinces him to have a conversation instead.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 24, 2017 1:25:32 GMT
If he is he could be a nexus -7, like Rachael is now thought to be. Ridley Scott discusses this in the book Future Noir, but it isn't established fact in the canon by any means. Just speculation. They clearly have different characteristics from the nexus-6. If Rachael can give birth I think it's safe to say anything goes with that model.
I've only seen 2049 once and I don't remember Deckard displaying superhuman strength in that fight. He's slugging K to minimal effect and K eventually convinces him to have a conversation instead.
I need to see it again too. Deckard was an older dude, he aged like a human does, he then would have been no match at all for K. If he was designed as a replicant Blade Runner, wouldn't it make sense that he have similar strength? Why would they create a replicant like Deckard, that wasn't up to the task or job, that was required to match those that were dangerous? There are too many anomolies and inconsistencies abound, and Ridley Scott created much of this by tampering with the context of Deckard's character after the fact and it has become confused. His movie flopped, so he decided to take it down a slightly different route and has created too much fuss and stir. No resolution or analysis is ever going to be correct or hit the jackpot of the intention. By keeping it ambiguous, and if they want to make another, they can take it down any contrived route they want too. Even the Blade Runner universe is a strange one and inaccurate, because the original is depicting a world as of now and it isn't like this. It perhaps needed to be set in the early 22nd century. Sometimes movie makers assume that things will be sooooooo different in 30 years or so. The first "Time Machine" movie made in 1960 or so assumed that people would be wearing metallic material jumpsuits by 1966. They weren't. People aren't wearing these 51 years later either.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 24, 2017 1:53:04 GMT
Sometimes movie makers assume that things will be sooooooo different in 30 years or so. The first "Time Machine" movie made in 1960 or so assumed that people would be wearing metallic material jumpsuits by 1966. They weren't. People aren't wearing these 51 years later either. It's kind of amusing, but it also spoils the reality of the BR universe, by being naive about what the future would look like so soon. Apparently, the novel was set in the early 90's. They made the film 10 yrs before this. Why would they only add on about 20 something yrs from the novel setting, when they only made it 10 yrs before the novel setting? They mustn't have had much hope for the future. I just watched the original theatrical trailer for Blade Runner and it is awful. It was perhaps intriguing at the time, but the trailer is overlong and poorly presented. It showed too much and not very well. They didn't promote it very well or appealingly. Yeah, the trailer wasn't very good - and it didn't sound like Harrison Ford doing the narrating, either. The film grew on people over time.
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 24, 2017 2:33:17 GMT
Yeah, the trailer wasn't very good - and it didn't sound like Harrison Ford doing the narrating, either. The film grew on people over time. It was the intelligence and skill behind the production, and the existentialist themes that have resonated with time. It still looks freakin' awesome today, and just taken as an alternate universe without bringing dates into contention, it works marvellously. The film noir style, with 80's cinematic technology, dark science fiction themes and disturbing, almost poetic random violence, all blended beautifully. The new BR, pretty much kept the same package in alignment, with it's own futuristic spin. Agreed! I'm very happy that I got to see Blade Runner 2049 when I did (because my usual theater in Jerusalem pushed it to late at night after only a week so I had to find another theater which happened to be IMAX in 3D). So it worked out great and I got to see it on a really big screen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2017 8:09:11 GMT
I need to see it again too. Deckard was an older dude, he aged like a human does, he then would have been no match at all for K. If he was designed as a replicant Blade Runner, wouldn't it make sense that he have similar strength? Why would they create a replicant like Deckard, that wasn't up to the task or job, that was required to match those that were dangerous? There are too many anomolies and inconsistencies abound, and Ridley Scott created much of this by tampering with the context of Deckard's character after the fact and it has become confused. His movie flopped, so he decided to take it down a slightly different route and has created too much fuss and stir. No resolution or analysis is ever going to be correct or hit the jackpot of the intention. By keeping it ambiguous, and if they want to make another, they can take it down any contrived route they want too. Even the Blade Runner universe is a strange one and inaccurate, because the original is depicting a world as of now and it isn't like this. It perhaps needed to be set in the early 22nd century. Sometimes movie makers assume that things will be sooooooo different in 30 years or so. The first "Time Machine" movie made in 1960 or so assumed that people would be wearing metallic material jumpsuits by 1966. They weren't. People aren't wearing these 51 years later either.
Apparently filmmakers prefer to pick a time fairly near at hand, it speaks more to the viewers imagination if a movie is set in a time period in the future that is near enough for the average viewer to be alive at that time.
Accuracy is irrelevant, sometimes thinking big makes it all more interesting. And if we look back at 'scientific' predictions, even outside movies we pretty much suck at predicting things
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Oct 24, 2017 8:58:52 GMT
I apologize if this matter has already emerged in this thread, but I did not want to risk reading any spoilers. Can someone tell me if the movie is worth seeing in 3D? Has anyone seen it in 3D and also without 3D?
|
|
|
Post by miike80 on Oct 24, 2017 9:05:19 GMT
I apologize if this matter has already emerged in this thread, but I did not want to risk reading any spoilers. Can someone tell me if the movie is worth seeing in 3D? Has anyone seen it in 3D and also without 3D? If it helps, Roger Deakins recommend NOT seeing the movie in 3D
|
|