Search results

I should say I mostly agree with you except about accepting "differences". To me it was more about finally concluding that the "difference" between Humans and Replicants was an artificial construct justifying murdering and controlling them.

This is my view of it as well which is why I said the idea of Deckard being a Replicant was and is stupid. It destroys the core theme of a human coming to realize that Replicants are human. I've always thought that Ridley Scott saying that Deckard was a Replicant was beyond dumb and I will...

The idea that Deckard was a replicant was, is and always will remain stupid.

I guess an art visioning of a mundane missing person hunt couldn't appeal to enough people.

45 minutes might be a little much, but it could have lost 20 without affecting it much.

As far as ratings go I would agree that rating has nothing to do with the film's under performance. The rating for this film in BC was 14A which covers a good portion of the teenage demographic. People in North America just are not interested in SF that isn't mindless, Arrival notwithstanding.

I can't figure how you can think there would no doubts as to their rights, when plenty of governments and power elites in the real world do not subscribe to any idea of innate human rights for billions of people.

Nowhere in the original do they ever show anything mechanical going into the replicants. Everyone involved in constructing replicants, either animal or human, is always shown as if they are manipulating or growing biological materials for components.

I'll take the word of the original screenwriters and Ford over the idiot Scott. Also, Deckard going on about them being machines just sounds like the typical justification any hunter would use to reduce their prey to a level that makes them easy to kill. It is no different than a hunter being...

That is something used only in this sequel. The original film didn't have them looking for a serial number. They used a series of seemingly random questions to test if their memories were authentic or implanted. In the original film, the retinal scan looked as if it was being used to detect...

They were genetically modified biological constructs. There was nothing robotic or mechanical about them. They were not machines. I would say the most accurate description is to call them biological androids.

I might go and see this again in 2D. Maybe the picture quality will improve as it is possible that the picture is just too dark for a good 3D presentation. The 3D was also pretty unmemorable. Also, maybe I'll manage to avoid meeting any pricks like the one I came across during my first viewing...

I would say that I liked these two films about the same. I have some issues with both films. In one respect, I have a similar issue with both films: that issue being the music. The music in neither film left any good impression on me. In Valerian, I hoped that the film would have the...

Not as good as the original in any way shape or form. The music was especially bad compared to the original film. As a sequel it was okay; although, I thought the visual look of the film was too dark and dingy. The world in this film felt too dead; although, I'm sure it was by design. The story...

Not enough Spandex? ;)

I'd like to see it opening day. Unfortunately, I'll be out of town on a job until Sunday.

It is not saying much for a film if a person is lost for the three hour running time because they missed a text crawl. It makes it sound like a huge failure when a text crawl has to make the film understandable.

For a film with a supposedly "simple" story the original has certainly generated a lot of discussion over the years. Complexity doesn't necessarily translate to better. The original's "simplicity" is what has generated so much discussion, because so much was left unexplained and open to...

If Deckard had no idea to begin with that Replicants had limited life spans then he would have no reason to believe that other replicants that he dealt with didn't live to ripe old ages. Him indicating that "older" Replicants had no desire to return to Earth doesn't mean that they had unlimited...

When I watch "The Final Cut" BD, it is for the quality of the mastering and transfer. I pretty well ignore all of Scott's asinine additions in trying to make Deckard appear to be a Replicant.

I'm embarrassed that I had to check and, yes, it did refer to them as such in the opening crawl, which apparently would negate my entire argument. Still, in actually watching the film, the theme, to me, has always been about what fundamentally defines one as being human and being recognized as...

Those are the original authors of the books, not screenwriters. Coppola referencing them in the title is one creative paying respects to another creative. The film is still Coppola's. Most people talking about the film will talk about it in terms Coppola's vision, not Mario Puzo's.

He may not have wrote it, but he is the face of the film. No film has ever stated "a film by (fill in the writer)". Regardless of who writes it, the film is always referred to as the director's. If it was in the script and he filmed it that way, without bringing up any concern, then he tacitly...

That's possible too.

Yeah. I don't know why they didn't just get Vangelis to do it, considering the fellow doing it now just seems to be imitating his style already. Maybe the scheduling couldn't be agreed on or, maybe, they think he was too old.

That quote about slavery from the director isn't what I want to hear. If he is he going that route, then he has already flubbed it in my book. AFAIAC, The original was about something even more fundamental than the evils of slavery. It was about what constitutes being human and being recognized...

Not necessarily. Rachael was a replicant. They were a couple, so him referring to "us" could just mean they were hunting the two of them. Her as a replicant and him as their attack dog that had gone rogue. The guy who is going to turn out to be a replicant in this film is the he new Blade...

Ridley Scott wants to see if he can assassinate the Blade Runner world in the same way that he did the Alien "franchise". ;) On a different note, I'm wondering if that orange look in Ford's scene is supposed to be a way of projecting that Deckard is in his sunset years?

The newest trailer makes this film look a lot more promising; although, I get this strange vibe, based on zero evidence, that tne new protagonist is going to turn out to be a replicant. It is nothing that would surprise me, considering Scott started things down that ridiculous road with his...

I don't see how referring to off-world colonies without specifics is damaging to Blade Runner as a film. I actually thought the ambiguity that ran through most of the film is what makes it such a masterpiece. Things are not spelled out in black and white. The audience member can draw their own...