|
|
Post by agentblue on Oct 23, 2017 8:08:02 GMT
Deckard as a replicant makes no sense to me. I just don't understand the point of it. The idea is that the authorities have the Tyrrell company build the some replicants in order to track down and retire other replicants, yes? But if that's so then why is Ford a civilian when we meet him? You go to all the trouble of making an anti-replicant replicant to act as a Blade Runner, and then just let it quit the force when it doesn't like doing the job? And if he's a replicant for taking on other replicants, why does he only have human normal physical capabilities? Any one of the replicants could have killed Deckard at any time. Zohra only failed because she was interrupted and panicked, Leon only failed because he decided to taunt Deckard a bit, and then had the bad luck to be shot by another replicant, Pris only failed because she decided to do a gymnastics display in the middle of it, and Roy only failed because he decided to mess around with Deckard for a while and then developed a newfound respect for all living things in his last moments. So if Deckard is an anti-replicant-replicant, then he's truly crappy at the job because he's woefully slower and weaker than his targets. Seriously, it just makes no sense to me.
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.
Indeed very shaky |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Oct 23, 2017 10:19:20 GMT
Blade Runner 2049 will be complete for me when it's released on iTunes (expected in December 2017). Then I can hear/see every tiny bit of dialog that I might have missed while watching it on IMAX 3D.  |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 23, 2017 10:54:47 GMT
Deckard as a replicant makes no sense to me. I just don't understand the point of it.The idea is that the authorities have the Tyrrell company build the some replicants in order to track down and retire other replicants, yes? But if that's so then why is Ford a civilian when we meet him? You go to all the trouble of making an anti-replicant replicant to act as a Blade Runner, and then just let it quit the force when it doesn't like doing the job? And if he's a replicant for taking on other replicants, why does he only have human normal physical capabilities? Any one of the replicants could have killed Deckard at any time. Zohra only failed because she was interrupted and panicked, Leon only failed because he decided to taunt Deckard a bit, and then had the bad luck to be shot by another replicant, Pris only failed because she decided to do a gymnastics display in the middle of it, and Roy only failed because he decided to mess around with Deckard for a while and then developed a newfound respect for all living things in his last moments. So if Deckard is an anti-replicant-replicant, then he's truly crappy at the job because he's woefully slower and weaker than his targets.Seriously, it just makes no sense to me. I agree, that is why I don't get all the fuss over the theatrical cut of the film not being the true vision. So if Deckard was a replicant, why did he age? Did they give him bad genes or something? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 23, 2017 11:00:47 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
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. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Oct 23, 2017 11:28:34 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.
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? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
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
|
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 Toasted Cheese on Oct 23, 2017 11:38:45 GMT
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.
I get what you mean, and the origami unicorn was left as an indication for him.
Yes, organisms break down and the ones created for off-world colonies were designed to be at their peak with a 4 year life span. I still feel this is a bit of a flaw. Wouldn't they just start to decay in a different manner, rather than age gracefull, or un-gracefully, as a human would? If Deckard was human, that would mean his daughter would age, because she was half human. |
|
|
|
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
|
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 Toasted Cheese on Oct 23, 2017 23:59:45 GMT
It came in way below box office expectations this weekend. I guess when you make a sequel to a bomb, there's a good chance it will bomb. The original has a cult following but it is relatively tiny so no real surprise. They really couldn't expect a massive hit, considering the original failed at the box-office and was not a generic mainstream production. It was a thinking man's sci-fi and I guess they thought they could sell it on Harrison Ford's presence. This new one, has understandably had to live off the coat-tails of the cult following and momentum that Blade Runner has gained over the past 35yrs. It was never going to be a smash, but I can see it gaining the same reverence as time goes by. Perhaps not as much though. There are too many contrivances and even obvious flaws to it's concept. |
|
