Blade Runner 2049

"OK, mate. You win! Anything! Just put it to rest."

In the book he wasn't a replicant but at one point he suspected he is which was much more interesting, not knowing, reader not knowing too... but he was 100% human which makes a solid bridge we can connect with the story, human to human bridge and not human to 'more than a human replicant' bridge. Is this really hard to understand?!

Everybody involved in the movie except Ridley didn't liked the idea of Deckard being a replicant. Harrison Ford hated it more than anybody. I just tend to agree.

the first rule of film making is, never argue with the director.

  On 10/15/2013 at 4:45 PM, MadameChaos said:

the first rule of film making is, never argue with the director.

Just cause it's a business, yes. If it's not H. Ford and others would tell him to fak off.

Ridley is one of the best directors ever and everything stays great until he start to mess with a story... unlike Kubrick who was a complete story teller, or Nolan.

why is it such a bad thing for Deckard to be a replicant? the whole point of this film is that the "robots" are more real than the people.

i'll tell you another thing, in the original version the Tyrell that Batty meets is also a replicant. did you know that?

<3 Sean Young.

  On 10/15/2013 at 1:42 PM, manmower said:

 

  On 10/15/2013 at 3:59 AM, Kcinsu said:

Wait, if you don't think he was a replicant then what is your explanation for the Unicorn?

If you watch the theatrical cut without the unicorn dream, then Gaff's unicorn is just another one of his origami 'messages' that he leaves lying around everywhere.

 

For the cuts with the unicorn dream, Gaff has to be the replicant out of the two of them, for Deckard to still be human. Doesn't make that much sense I'll admit but at least the fact that Olmos happened to look as wooden as an android at the time (even when he was on Miami Vice a couple of years later) kind of helps to ignore the more obvious implication.

 

I don't "hate" the idea that Deckard is a replicant but it weakens the film. It still achieves the same goal of blurring the lines between humans and androids, but it goes about it in a way I don't like. The point then becomes about the audience sympathizing with the replicants and realizing they've been identifying with one all along, but Deckard himself sympathizing with the replicants becomes completely trivial. Not bad, but I prefer the version where Deckard has a more engaging character arc, which is kind of lost with the twist ending, IMO.

 

Final note, I don't get what Joyrex means by "the writer" intended it this way. I always thought Ridley Scott was the only person to have come out and said he meant for Deckard to be a replicant.

 

Considering the script had the scenes with the unicorn in them, and Gaff's lines... how else could the implication be made?

And don't blame Olmos' wooden acting for the reason he must be a replicant - if that's the case, then all the Star Wars prequels had replicants instead of Jedis and Sith. Gaff knew internally that Deckard was a replicant and the Blade Runner force had a replicant as one of the Runners, and it turned out he was the best - because he was a replicant. Gaff knew this, and was giving Deckard subtle hints at it - the look of realization at the end of the movie when Deckard picks up the unicorn, realizes Gaff knows what he's suspected all along, and then takes Rachel and runs off to spend however much time they have left together.

  On 10/15/2013 at 4:41 PM, xox said:

In the book he wasn't a replicant but at one point he suspected he is which was much more interesting, not knowing, reader not knowing too... but he was 100% human which makes a solid bridge we can connect with the story, human to human bridge and not human to 'more than a human replicant' bridge. Is this really hard to understand?!

Everybody involved in the movie except Ridley didn't liked the idea of Deckard being a replicant. Harrison Ford hated it more than anybody. I just tend to agree.

To be fair, the book and the screenplay are very different, so I wouldn't use that a basis for interpreting the film. I see both as separate, but related works myself.

I think the point of Deckard being a replicant (outside the story's reasons) is so the viewer feels sympathy once they realize Deckard is also a replicant, he runs to spend as much time as he and Rachel have left, fully knowing they'll be hunted down or die due to reaching their pre-set lifespan limit.

Yeah, I'm with JR on this one.

Well shit I need to watch this again. I listened to the book a couple years back and enjoyed it. I don't remember all this unicorn shit though.

  On 10/15/2013 at 5:31 AM, John Ehrlichman said:

would be hilaruious if Sean Young co-starred with Ford in her current state

 

 

apparently she's a huge fan of my sister and tweets to her all the time

Just realized she's born the same year as my parents, haha. I guess she could make a cameo appearance if co-starring doesn't seem feasible.

I still think Blade Runner was well ahead of its time. The Fifth Element ripped off of it blatantly.

You guys are missing the point of the whole thing.

You're right, the point is the same either way. It's just a matter of taste as to what was the better way of getting the point across, but I think today may well be the day I stop caring about the difference. Finally.

  On 10/15/2013 at 5:14 PM, MadameChaos said:

why is it such a bad thing for Deckard to be a replicant? the whole point of this film is that the "robots" are more real than the people.

 

i'll tell you another thing, in the original version the Tyrell that Batty meets is also a replicant. did you know that?

that's NOT the point of the movie, i'm sorry and replicants are not robots but genetically designed humans. why wouldn't they be 'more than a human' beings? it's a question of soul; do they have them. if yes, they can easily be 'more than a humans' humans. you see where we're going? ...how deep Philip K. Dick went? can a intelligent entity (other than God) have a real empathy without being part of the bios or any other living system in this universe, without being a Platonic idea in its pure form?

second, of course i know about version/idea of Tyrell being a replicant, with the real dead body being on the top of the building. i know everything about the movie. i mean....look at my avatar ;)

  On 10/15/2013 at 7:06 PM, Joyrex said:

 

 

 

I think the point of Deckard being a replicant (outside the story's reasons) is so the viewer feels sympathy once they realize Deckard is also a replicant, he runs to spend as much time as he and Rachel have left, fully knowing they'll be hunted down or die due to reaching their pre-set lifespan limit.

 

i understand Ridley's tricks but they're sooooo superficial! we got to the sympathy point for replicants with Rachel and for a real human to fall in love to a replicant willing to die for hear... that sounds much more philosophically interesting to me and i'm not alone on this one. i know that the book differs a lot from the movie but the only thing where they should be the same is in nature of Deckard. Philip K. Dick was a very VERY smart guy and he had a reason for everything he ever wrote. Ridley just wanted to show how he can think with his head like no one before by countering everyone and everything where ever he can, in evey project he works on. That doesn't prove he's the most creative guy in the business; it's just a weak attempt. I'm sorry to say but to me Ridley radiates with a solid mediocrity >>> accept in pure directing. I mean c'mon look at the Prometheus' fak up. Yes, Ridley WAS deeply involved in the script writing and ideas.

but ok...we can agree to disagree i guess

  On 10/15/2013 at 7:30 PM, sheatheman said:

You guys are missing the point of the whole thing.

  On 10/15/2013 at 8:26 PM, manmower said:

You're right, the point is the same either way. It's just a matter of taste as to what was the better way of getting the point across, but I think today may well be the day I stop caring about the difference. Finally.

What was the point again?

(Maybe Lawrence Fishburne can put on sunglasses and enlighten us)

I advice you guys to watch the 2008 extended Cut (Fanedit made by ADigitalMan) of this beautiful Movie.

For me, and I really love this Movie and saw it many, many times in all of its Versions, it's the definite Cut.

Really nice noir nod to an already noir movie.

  On 10/15/2013 at 9:40 PM, ambermonk said:

 

  On 10/15/2013 at 7:30 PM, sheatheman said:

You guys are missing the point of the whole thing.

 

  On 10/15/2013 at 8:26 PM, manmower said:

You're right, the point is the same either way. It's just a matter of taste as to what was the better way of getting the point across, but I think today may well be the day I stop caring about the difference. Finally.

What was the point again?

 

(Maybe Lawrence Fishburne can put on sunglasses and enlighten us)

 

I'll try to put it succinctly, even though someone is bound to disagree and I'm not really looking for a discussion, but I think: the question is not whether he is a replicant, but whether he is human.

he's human.

  On 10/17/2013 at 4:48 PM, manmower said:

 

  On 10/15/2013 at 9:40 PM, ambermonk said:

 

  On 10/15/2013 at 7:30 PM, sheatheman said:

You guys are missing the point of the whole thing.

 

  On 10/15/2013 at 8:26 PM, manmower said:

You're right, the point is the same either way. It's just a matter of taste as to what was the better way of getting the point across, but I think today may well be the day I stop caring about the difference. Finally.

What was the point again?

 

(Maybe Lawrence Fishburne can put on sunglasses and enlighten us)

 

I'll try to put it succinctly, even though someone is bound to disagree and I'm not really looking for a discussion, but I think: the question is not whether he is a replicant, but whether he is human.

 

I really like that perspective

this is a joke right? http://www.the-shoe-horn.com/entertainment/michael-bay-penned-to-direct-stunning-blade-runner-remake/

Considering all their other stories are attempts at satire I would have to say yes.

lol roy barry

  On 10/14/2013 at 11:35 AM, MadameChaos said:

Right, so Harrison Ford has broken his silence on the matter...

 

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=38990&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101113+newsletter

  On 10/19/2013 at 4:46 AM, Rubin Farr said:

 

  On 10/14/2013 at 11:35 AM, MadameChaos said:

Right, so Harrison Ford has broken his silence on the matter...

 

http://www.empireonline.com/news/story.asp?NID=38990&utm_source=ExactTarget&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=101113+newsletter

Apparently, he's having second thoughts about being in the new Star Wars trilogy as well.

 

aka "you'll have to pay me more money to be in your shitty movie"

I'm sure PKD is rolling in his grave over this. After seeing parts of Blade Runner (he died before its release) he was eventually happy with the rewritten script and test reel because he felt it represented the world he created perfectly. I don't like the idea of a sequel being made that will be in a similar style because it will never be authentic PKD material.