|
fr0id posted:As the title says, plus other chat about the blade runner movies and anime. it doesn't matter
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 00:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
I thought the whole point of the movie was that these "fake" people were more alive than the "real" guy (Deckard) and to just say, "Oh yeah, Deckard is a replicant because I have this unused shot of a unicorn left over from Legend so I'll insert it in the movie for a cheap twist" seems cheap
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 03:24
|
|
|
It wasn’t a reused shot from Legend. Turn off RLM. And the plot of 2049 doesn’t even work if Deckard is human. Edit: Like having humans impregnating robots/machines is so comically stupid, even for a science fiction movie. Plus, there’s that whole bit about Wallace’s decades long — and failed — attempts to make replicant “breeders” in order to acquire an unlimited slave/labor force the way Tyrell did before he died. MLSM fucked around with this message at 04:28 on Dec 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
Happy Hippo posted:I thought the whole point of the movie was that these "fake" people were more alive than the "real" guy (Deckard) and to just say, "Oh yeah, Deckard is a replicant because I have this unused shot of a unicorn left over from Legend so I'll insert it in the movie for a cheap twist" seems cheap The unused shot from Legend is an inaccurate but very pervasive myth. It was part of the Blade Runner shoot and always part of Ridley's assembly cut. https://twitter.com/Lauzirika/status/1306750988943060992?s=20&t=BdAki81ilfPRb0yqTJGS9g
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 04:25
|
|
|
MLSM posted:It wasn’t a reused shot from Legend. Turn off RLM. Did RLM really say this? Because it being footage from Legend was a thing that was disproven like, literally in the early 90s when Scott said it had always been shot and intended for the movie (along with it literally looking absolutely nothing like anything in Legend besides both movies having a unicorn) not long after the Director's Cut with it was released. IIRC even The Blade Runner faq I posted earlier in the thread from that time refers to it as a stupid rumor. Like I don't know the general consensus on RLM but that's just fuckin' bad lmao.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 04:53
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Did RLM really say this? Because it being footage from Legend was a thing that was disproven like, literally in the early 90s when Scott said it had always been shot and intended for the movie (along with it literally looking absolutely nothing like anything in Legend besides both movies having a unicorn) not long after the Director's Cut with it was released. IIRC even The Blade Runner faq I posted earlier in the thread from that time refers to it as a stupid rumor. Yeah, they egregiously did. Go look at their Blade Runner re:View and the cringe starts at 6:40 minutes in.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 05:37
|
|
|
MLSM posted:It wasn’t a reused shot from Legend. Turn off RLM. The whole thing in 2049 only works because of the ambiguity, which you barely even call because Deckard is clearly telegraphed as human. Wallace explicitly lays this out in his conversation with Deckard - it doesn't really matter either way because Tyrell was able to manipulate Deckard into meeting Rachel, a replicant specifically designed to both entrance Deckard and be biologically compatible with him to the extent of overcoming previous versions inability to reproduce. Wallace can't do this in terms of technical ability and understanding of human nature, thus he's left reliant on a blunt object (luv) to gather the pieces that will allow him to appropriate the genius of his predecessor. The line between human and replicant is about social status, agency, and free will more than biology. Deckard is already biologically human but has to reclaim that status in the original and reassert it in the sequel. The existence of a human/replicant hybrid (and the potential of creating more) doesn't upend that framework of positionality so much as make the gradients more legible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 05:39
|
|
|
MLSM posted:Yeah, they egregiously did. Go look at their Blade Runner re:View and the cringe starts at 6:40 minutes in. Insanely bad holy poo poo Why does he keep pronouncing "Sean Young" as "Shunyong" I tapped out after about two minutes
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 06:02
|
|
|
I appreciate the RLM hate. And I like the split of people who have an opinion versus say it should not matter. Ie the mystery is more important. I think that’s pure cowardice. Even if you don’t think it matters, you should have an actual thought and idea of what the truth is. Like if you leave an ambiguous movie thinking “hm yes I love not having an opinion on it one way or the other” That’s automaton poo poo. Yes of course the point is there is no objective truth. But the point of this thread is what is your subjective truth. “Who gives a poo poo” or “there is no answer” is so incredibly boring. Have some balls to come out with an actual opinion rather than the safest “oh who can say.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 06:41
|
|
|
fr0id posted:I appreciate the RLM hate. And I like the split of people who have an opinion versus say it should not matter. Ie the mystery is more important. I think that’s pure cowardice. Even if you don’t think it matters, you should have an actual thought and idea of what the truth is. Like if you leave an ambiguous movie thinking “hm yes I love not having an opinion on it one way or the other” Now just, please don't move. fr0id posted:the mystery is more important. I think that’s pure cowardice. Reaction time is a factor in this so please pay attention to this, now reply to each post as quickly as you can. 528618819 fr0id posted:Even if you don’t think it matters, you should have an actual thought and idea of what the truth is. Like if you leave an ambiguous movie thinking “hm yes I love not having an opinion on it one way or the other” You're on an internet forum, browsing several threads, when you look down and come across a thread in CineD, it's about whether Deckard is a replicant or not. fr0id posted:That’s automaton poo poo. What? You ever see a Usenet group? It's the same thing. fr0id posted:Yes of course the point is there is no objective truth. But the point of this thread is what is your subjective truth. “Who gives a poo poo” or “there is no answer” is so incredibly boring. Have some balls to come out with an actual opinion rather than the safest “oh who can say.” They're just opinions fr0id. In answer to your query they're typed out by us. It's a thread designed to provoke an emotional post. Shall we continue? I posted about this earlier but there's a massive difference between feeling "it doesn't matter" and feeling it's unresolvable. Personally part of why it's my favorite movie ever is that it's unresolvable enough that personally, I can't decide. Not that I think it doesn't matter, but that whether I think he's a human or a replicant (as in literally a grown android and not just on a thematic level) flipflops from viewing to viewing for a long time now. No other movie has had that effect on me. It matters to me A LOT because of that. But you see shades of this even in the opening scene with Morgan Paull's performance as Holden. It's safe to assume Holden is a human being. I love his look and performance in that scene so much. He's professional but worn down and you can tell by the time he's testing Leon this is probably like the 10th person he's done the VK test on today. He's working to be as machine-like as possible with how he does the test which I find interesting, not really having patience to handle Leon's interjections. Leon's not acting enough like him, and because of that Holden doesn't seem to be taking him particularly seriously as a replicant* which says a lot about what being a cop has done to Holden as a person. We then see that writ large with Deckard, who The movie does such a good job with all these small interactions between everyone, I love it. Because so much of the movie's depth comes from how dense most of the performances are and the atmosphere they create with the rest of the movie's presentation. I like what a can of worms it is to talk about even some of the smallest stuff that pops up in the movie. It makes it easy to see why people would come away from the entire movie feeling it doesn't matter and leave it at that. No judgment but I also think that's why some people find the movie to be a little too slow/boring. *Though I always though it was silly how Bryant has photos/etc. of this replicant named Leon but I guess didn't give that information to Holden OOPS.  Even with Bryant wanting to keep the replicants' escape covered up he'd have at least given Holden a briefing similar to what he did with Deckard right?
Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 07:48 on Dec 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 07:46
|
|
|
Happy Hippo posted:I thought the whole point of the movie was that these "fake" people were more alive than the "real" guy (Deckard)
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 08:43
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:*Though I always though it was silly how Bryant has photos/etc. of this replicant named Leon but I guess didn't give that information to Holden OOPS. I never thought about that before. gently caress. Distribute some wanted posters and make sure your whole department sees them. Then you can just be like, "oh it's that guy." They didn't even try to disguise themselves.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 09:14
|
|
|
I always assumed the photos came as a result of the attack on Holden, or that they didn't arrive in time to catch him. It is kind of a weird conceit that the ways to find replicants amount to 'make them take this test', and not 'keep detailed records of what they look like since every single one of them to date has been engineered'. It does suggest a mistrust of Tyrell Corp, though, and VK would likely be useful for 'rogue' genetic engineers if they exist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 17:39
|
|
|
Kangra posted:I always assumed the photos came as a result of the attack on Holden, or that they didn't arrive in time to catch him. It is kind of a weird conceit that the ways to find replicants amount to 'make them take this test', and not 'keep detailed records of what they look like since every single one of them to date has been engineered'. It does suggest a mistrust of Tyrell Corp, though, and VK would likely be useful for 'rogue' genetic engineers if they exist. That makes sense too, but then the other photos look like they're just off the assembly line or something. But also since they're more grown than built I could see how even ones from the same template or whatever could still pass as different people. So it could work that the Leon's base is a generic enough "some dude" that they didn't have that exact photo til after like they did for the more specialized models. And Holden doesn't seem tired per se but is clearly terse and just going through the motions in the opening scene. The later stuff like the animated series takes this into account in some ways. In the movie I think it's just a weird holdover from the book where you get the idea that there's mass produced replicants but also plenty of very specific ones where each is meant to replace an individual human. Speaking of which what did people think of the animated mini-series? Overall I dug it but it felt a little padded (there's an enitr episode halfway through that's just a recap episode). Parts of it the writing got really good, and the look feels appropriately like an in between of the original and 2049. I wish the animation was nicer though, the scenery looks very nice but when folks are moving around it can get rough sometimes. The expception is this one action scene near the halfway point and a dramatic flashback for one of the side characters later where you can tell they put a lot of effort into both. Overall I dug it, and the episodes are only 20 minutes each so I'd say it's worth watching. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Dec 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 18:49
|
|
|
With this being the defacto Blade Runner thread, thought I'd talk a bit about the tabletop RPG that came out recently. It's set between the films and does a really good job at giving a bit more definition to the universe without going over the top and overexplaining everything. A bit bland in some of its choices, but nothing egregious. It's a detective game more than anything. I was making some really elaborate homebrew a few months back before my interest waned. Might jump back on that again sometime since I'd made some real progress and was liking where it was going. Anyway, something that might pique some folks interest here is an in-universe timeline I put together that was a bit more fleshed-out (and accurate) than the one in the game. Of course it's all "canon" nonsense but a fun curiosity, I think. Tried to only use "official" sources to build it. Same goes for the map of Los Angeles. The one i the RPG doesn't match on-screen reference material so I made my own. A lot more speculation on this, and it's more geared to being used in gameplay than being screen-accurate, but it's based on what we see on Luv's computer in 2049. I also made the most screen-accurate version of The Independent Sentinel newspaper from the first movie. All the other ones out there including the one in the RPG are missing a lot of details.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 18:57
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:Speaking of which what did people think of the animated mini-series? Overall I dug it but it felt a little padded (there's an enitr episode halfway through that's just a recap episode). The vast, vast majority of discussion around the show online is people complaining about the animation, which is a bummer because I think there are far more valid things to complain about. I wasn't bothered but it, as much as I also wish it was 2D and more stylized. I did find the production design incredibly bland, though it all fit into the universe well. It just lacked any of the weirdness of either film. Overall, I think it was quite bad. There were some very interesting moments, and it was well-constructed in a number of ways, but ultimately I think the series fails at being a good Blade Runner show. I can see someone digging it as its own thing to some degree, but to me it was really disappointing after the Blackout short. It just feels like it doesn't understand the appeal of the films at all, and isn't aimed at the same audience as the films are. It's quite obviously made to bring anime-loving teens to the franchise, and is more concerned with "badass" action than it is with philosophical quandries. The fact that it centers around a hypercompetent katana-weilding "doll" who is a special one-off assassin model should tell you enough. Overall it just felt to me like it totally lacked imagination and wanted to expand the audience more than it wanted to expand the world or concepts of the films. It's more Alita than Blade Runner. The recent comics are a bit better, but still don't feel like they're doing anything particularly interesting or unique. feedmyleg fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Dec 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 19:11
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:With this being the defacto Blade Runner thread, thought I'd talk a bit about the tabletop RPG that came out recently. That's pretty cool. I have the rpg on my shelf (no one to play with lol). I'll likely grab copies of your stuff in the future for safe keeping. Blade Runner is dope.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 19:14
|
|
|
feedmyleg posted:Anyway, something that might pique some folks interest here is an in-universe timeline I put together that was a bit more fleshed-out (and accurate) than the one in the game. Of course it's all "canon" nonsense but a fun curiosity, I think. Tried to only use "official" sources to build it. You fuckin' rule for this I don't think any movie will that perfect combination of slow burn enticingg weirdness/dangerousness as the first Blade Runner. A shame. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Dec 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 19:17
|
|
|
Pretty sure Holden already knew Leon was a Replicant before even he started the V-K exam. It's just an intimidation tactic for Blade Runners and probably a very effective one under normal circumstances, he just didn't have the upper hand.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2022 19:39
|
|
|
I think the movies would have been more popular if the replicants talked like robots and could transform into gross biomechanical monsters whenever their cover was blown
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 05:48
|
|
|
Cool thread, thanks for the read. I'm probably long overdue for a rewatch of the original film, but in the meantime, how does Leon end up being retired, does Deckard shoot him? Neat little parallels/differences to the opening scene of 2049, in that Hollywood's ideas of what a big intimidating guy looks like have changed a bit - Brion James is certainly an imposing figure, but not nearly as much as
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 06:33
|
|
|
ChickenHeart posted:I think the movies would have been more popular if the replicants talked like robots and could transform into gross biomechanical monsters whenever their cover was blown
|
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 06:37
|
|
|
Mister Speaker posted:I'm probably long overdue for a rewatch of the original film, but in the meantime, how does Leon end up being retired, does Deckard shoot him? Rachael shoots Leon with Deckard's gun right before Leon uses his skull as a stress ball. Edit: And after that, they go to Deckard's apartment and things get all rapey. Timby fucked around with this message at 06:50 on Dec 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2022 06:43
|
|
|
I can't find the source tweet thread, but people looking at this thread might appreciate this powerful image dump: A thorough breakdown of every ad/source on the advertising blimp, one of the coolest models ever made:                
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2022 05:25
|
|
|
fr0id posted:Like if you leave an ambiguous movie thinking “hm yes I love not having an opinion on it one way or the other” I really don’t understand this thought, because I pretty much did feel that way: that it’s impossible to know if Deckard is or is not a replicant, and that the question isn’t relevant on a semantic or material level in the world as depicted in the film. I don’t “have an opinion” because any concrete answer seems to miss the point of the story. It’s like asking about the ending of Inception, “is it a dream or not?” It’s not cowardice to acknowledge that the film presents the question and then refuses to answer it. That there is no single answer in this piece of fiction that doesn’t provide one on purpose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 03:26
|
|
|
Xealot posted:I really don’t understand this thought, because I pretty much did feel that way: that it’s impossible to know if Deckard is or is not a replicant, and that the question isn’t relevant on a semantic or material level in the world as depicted in the film. I don’t “have an opinion” because any concrete answer seems to miss the point of the story. Yeah, when the whole point is to acknowledge the ambiguity of the situation and accepting that the "truth" of the matter is irrelevant, then having no opinion about Deckard's biological origins is perfectly valid. Like imagine a scenario where a child has doubts if his loving father is his biological father or not but comes to accept that the question is irrelevant, because he still is his loving father. Same thing here, it doesn't matter if Deckard is biologically human or not, what matters is that he is human in viewers eyes when the credits roll. In fact I'd go as far as to say that needing to know the truth about Deckard's physiology kinda goes against the themes Blade Runner is trying to present. It'd be the same if in hypothetical movie about child wondering about his relations to his father viewers would continue discussing afterwards for years 'well, WAS the father his biological father or not?!". It defeats the purpose when the idea is to explore the essence of parental love or humanity.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 14:33
|
|
|
Xealot posted:I really don’t understand this thought, because I pretty much did feel that way: that it’s impossible to know if Deckard is or is not a replicant, and that the question isn’t relevant on a semantic or material level in the world as depicted in the film. I don’t “have an opinion” because any concrete answer seems to miss the point of the story. That’s mixing up two different things. Inception isn’t actually ambiguous; it’s a straightforward rejection of “simulation theories”. If there’s zero evidence that you’re in a VR, one way or another, then it’s dumb to act on that assumption. With Deckard being a replicant, there would be evidence. Nexus 7s have artificial bodies and memories, but Tyrell doesn’t have the ability to create a full-fledged external reality. Deckard would have been constructed in some kind of facility, by some kind of workers. There’s an implication that Deckard basically just wakes up around the time that he meets Gaff - i.e. that he was specifically ‘activated’ to replace Holden, who was killed in the opening scene. If so, it would be very simple to find out that nobody had ever met him before. Going back further: where was he born? Where did he go to school? How long has his bank account been open? How long has he been renting that apartment? Plus: if Rachel’s memories are copied from Tyrell’s niece, then investigation into Deckard’s own memories would probably reveal his original person. If we interpret Deckard as a human, he’s beyond merely disaffected and antisocial; he’s straight-up cognitively impaired in some way. (This is why Blade Runner 2’s story doesn’t work either, as it happens.) In other words: any uncertainty or ambiguity on the part of a character, over whether they are human, is actually definitive proof that they aren’t. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Dec 30, 2022 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2022 19:13
|
|
|
ChickenHeart posted:I think the movies would have been more popular if the replicants talked like robots and could transform into gross biomechanical monsters whenever their cover was blown Need to see Cronenberg’s Blade Runner now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2023 15:42
|
|
|
Read about his unmade Total Recall draft. Seems like it would have covered a lot of similar territory. I don't know if all of the details are online anywhere, but the making-of on the 4K Blu-Ray had some really great info.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2023 15:53
|
|
|
ChickenHeart posted:I think the movies would have been more popular if the replicants talked like robots and could transform into gross biomechanical monsters whenever their cover was blown Enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1aSPh2QwHGk feedmyleg posted:Read about his unmade Total Recall draft. Seems like it would have covered a lot of similar territory. I don't know if all of the details are online anywhere, but the making-of on the 4K Blu-Ray had some really great info. That reminds me there was that weird Total Recall tv series that lasted a season. It...wasn't horrible but pretty clunky in that special 90s tv show way. It's called Total Recall but it's more of like an unofficial Blade Runner show in a lot of ways, I dug it. I'm sure it's all on YouTube now or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2023 20:12
|
|
|
fr0id posted:I appreciate the RLM hate. And I like the split of people who have an opinion versus say it should not matter. Ie the mystery is more important. I think that’s pure cowardice. Even if you don’t think it matters, you should have an actual thought and idea of what the truth is. Like if you leave an ambiguous movie thinking “hm yes I love not having an opinion on it one way or the other” You can't just force yourself to have an opinion, lol. The film has to evoke it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2023 23:31
|
|
|
SidneyIsTheKiller posted:You can't just force yourself to have an opinion, lol. The film has to evoke it. We call it CineD for short.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 03:15
|
|
|
I was being pretty aggro with my reply. I do think it’s actually okay to conclude “there is no answer” but I think even that should have some evidence for it as opposed to a single glib statement. As has been said, it’s a central mystery of the movie, and one worth exploring and discussing. Lots of great discussion here, and I’m happy to see SMG chime in with an interesting opinion, as well as other folks. If I were to add another question, which has already been touched upon: In your opinion how does the preceding film and its meaning change it deckard is a replicant versus if he isn’t?
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 03:29
|
|
|
fr0id posted:I was being pretty aggro with my reply. I do think it’s actually okay to conclude “there is no answer” but I think even that should have some evidence for it as opposed to a single glib statement. As has been said, it’s a central mystery of the movie, and one worth exploring and discussing. Lots of great discussion here, and I’m happy to see SMG chime in with an interesting opinion, as well as other folks. I appreciate this follow up post because that previous one came off like this was a "write my paper for me" thread lol. And I know I tend to flip flop on it myself but honestly even if I thought for sure he was one or the other I would never reveal it because it's way more interesting to discuss than it is to argue for.  fr0id posted:In your opinion how does the preceding film and its meaning change it deckard is a replicant versus if he isn’t? If Deckard observes the unicorn origami and something clicks in such way that he knows 100% definitively that he's a replicant, you could say it makes what we learn initially learn about him in 2049 less ambitious on his part. When he says they all have their part to play/etc. you could say he's found a release from responsibility/being human in disappearing until the resistance the movie's events are set in motion. He's willingly become a cog in the overall replicant resistance "machine." But it also makes his character more human than human during the Rachael scene and especially (and K too) the ending since they don't exactly go to some resistance safehouse or disappear at the end. He does the opposite of the most logical thing, seeking out others like him instead of seeking isolation, but that's an interesting evolution of his character from what we learn of what happens with him between flicks. And it fits with how every replicant in the original (and almost every one in 2049) break their programming in one way or another. If Deckard observes the unicorn and something clicks in such a way that he knows 100% definitively that he's a human, it makes him way more interesting initially, because Rachael dies while giving birth. So after their brief time together it's not like he would have been some hyper-wanted mega criminal. I mean come on, he's not little people, he's a cop with The Magic, someone with his reputation in the LAPD wasn't REALLY going to be in trouble if he came back a year later and was like "uh, yeah, she died Bryant, four year life span, I verified it, tough case, where's my check." And you know Gaff would have had his back - I never took his leaving the unicorn as a throwing down of the gauntlet like he was going to full force pursue them for real. With that in mind Deckard didn't just fall for Rachael, he was fully radicalized and able to keep himself in isolation to protect his daughter. Which fits with the reverence with which Bautista refers to the miracle of her being able to give birth. So I think in a way it makes his isolation more human on his part than less like if he was a replicant.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 04:54
|
|
|
In 2049 Deckard dismisses Wallace's offer of a replacement Rachael, and says "Her eyes were green." "Rachael" has brown eyes in 2049, just like Rachael does throughout the original film, except that the closeup of the eye during the VK scene in the original is actually green. Her name is Rachael in the credits for the original movie, this 2049, and almost everything else, it’s officially spelt Rachael. HOWEVER on the official soundtrack her track is titled “Rachel’s Song” and it’s Rachel in most of the official video game documentation too. It’s also Rachel on some early promotional materials. The not so great official sequel novels K. W. Jeter wrote in the mid 90s use "Rachel" also. And I just appreciate that through a combination of various factors even basic stuff like that about a major character in a film series with these of all themes isn't set in stone. Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jan 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 05:21
|
|
|
Personally I prefer “Deckard is not a replicant” because I like the theme in the movie of “real human guy is murdering ‘fake’ human guys because he’s been told to, thus fulfilling his programming. The fake humans are exercising more free will than he does, maaaaaan” which was very cool when I watched it in my youth. Plus I read the book and it seemed like he was a real human in that (which is confusing because I guess even real humans can like tune their emotions via the radio???? It’s been awhile). But I also consumed this media when I was much younger and more media illiterate. I’m glad they leave it open to interpretation because otherwise we wouldn’t have any of this discussion. It’s really a matter of which of the movie’s themes you want to emphasize – as long as you recognize that the ambiguity is part of those themes. The humans and the replicants are really only different in their origin and their lifespan. They’re both sentient and both experience the full gamut of “human” emotion. Replicants aren’t androids at all. That’s why we’re able to debate this in the first place because it could go either way for Deckard. Anyway, good movie and good book. 2049 was a blast to see in the theater.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 06:32
|
|
|
Neo Rasa posted:If Deckard observes the unicorn origami and something clicks in such way that he knows 100% definitively that he's a replicant, you could say it makes what we learn initially learn about him in 2049 less ambitious on his part. When he says they all have their part to play/etc. you could say he's found a release from responsibility/being human in disappearing until the resistance the movie's events are set in motion. He's willingly become a cog in the overall replicant resistance "machine."
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 17:02
|
|
|
The premise of the sequel novel is a terrible misguided retcon of pretty much all the end of the events of the film. If you can get over that, I have heard that there's some decently interesting stuff going on but I haven't been able to bring myself to read them yet. The original human Roy Batty who served as the template for the replicant is a major character, if that clues you in to what you're in for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 17:57
|
|
|
The second novel (Blade Runner 3: Replicant Night) has Deckard as a consultant on a movie about his career as a Blade Runner and I'd read that too, it's also terribly misguided in some ways but also some of the ways it goes in, like Blade Runner 2: The Edge of Human, LMAO Spoiler for Blade Runner 2's premise, Deckard retired a human by mistake, the human in question is Pris!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHE WAS HUMAN THE WHOLE TIME! Now of all the characters you could choose from the first movie for this specific scenario, like, LOL Neo Rasa fucked around with this message at 18:48 on Jan 3, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 23:05 |
|
|
The fourth one goes completely off the deep end, but i don't think it was ever released in the US for some reason.
|
|
#
?
Jan 3, 2023 19:51
|
|
