GRcade

Wedgie wrote:

Rudolphin wrote:They got the look down. They've got possibly the best actor imaginable for the lead role. They've got the director of one of my Films of the Year. The only negative so far is Harrison Ford. Why is he in this, apart from star power? Why ruin 3 decades of speculation?

Apart from that; fully onboard.

Also it pretty much disregard Ridley Scott's so called "Director's Cut" version which implies that Deckard is a replicant, as they have a short life-span of four years or something?

Yeah, that's the speculation I was referring to; it confirms Deckard is human. The fact that the ending of the Director's Cut was so ambiguous is what made it one of the best endings to a sci-fi film ever.

Agree 100% on Decker being in this as retroactively ruining the ambiguity of the original, which was pretty much perfect as it was. The final cut heavily implies that Decker is a replicant, which is normally the reading I get (thanks mainly to the unicorn), but the remaining ambiguity is really what makes it.

Iirc Ridley Scott thought of Decker as a replicant (hence there is much less ambiguity in the final cut) but Harrison Ford contended he was playing a human character. So I guess Ford liked returning to this part just to win that argument!

I'm not sure how you can explain the unicorn away from the original for the sequel though. I imagine it just won't even get referenced.

Gandalf wrote:I didn't like the original. Plus this one's got Ryan Gosling in it. PASS......

This, but Ryan Gosling = In.

Regarding Deckard being a replicant, can someone explain:

If he was a replicant, why was he a retired policeman at the start of the film? What's the point in having a replicant if it stops doing its job and goes into retirement?

It's been a few years since I last watched Blade Runner, but I'm pretty sure the idea is that his memories aren't real, they are implanted.

Can they make elderly replicants that think they are the same person as earlier replicants?

Each replicant have a four year life span.

Deckard, if he was a replicant and he didn't know it, possibly had memories and a back story so he can go hunt down the rogue replicants without feeling any sympathy for them.

Otherwise why would a police force just put ONE man to hunt down four replicants? No back up?

make fists with your toes wrote:Regarding Deckard being a replicant, can someone explain:

If he was a replicant, why was he a retired policeman at the start of the film? What's the point in having a replicant if it stops doing its job and goes into retirement?

Tyrell himself references the fact that new versions of Replicants are given memories so they're easier to control. Hence Rachel and the spider story. It's entirely possible that Deckard was given false memories as a veteran Bladerunner for this reason. If this is the case, Deckard never was in retirement, he was activated, plopped in the world and immediately remembered retiring.

What if Old Deckard is a Replicant? They keep bringing him back in new bodies and adding memories or something because he's their best guy.

Alvin Flummux wrote:What if Old Deckard is a Replicant? They keep bringing him back in new bodies and adding memories or something because he's their best guy.

I'm not annoyed at the fact the trailer makes him look human, it's that the new film will destroy the ambiguity. One way or another, they'll have to confront his identity head on which ruins the mystery.

Rudolphin wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:What if Old Deckard is a Replicant? They keep bringing him back in new bodies and adding memories or something because he's their best guy.

I'm not annoyed at the fact the trailer makes him look human, it's that the new film will destroy the ambiguity. One way or another, they'll have to confront his identity head on which ruins the mystery.

Or they won't and things will become that much more confusing.

Rudolphin wrote:

Alvin Flummux wrote:What if Old Deckard is a Replicant? They keep bringing him back in new bodies and adding memories or something because he's their best guy.

I'm not annoyed at the fact the trailer makes him look human, it's that the new film will destroy the ambiguity. One way or another, they'll have to confront his identity head on which ruins the mystery.

Not really, it could easily be kept ambiguous so that you don't know if young/old Deckard are the same person, if one or neither was human etc.

I'd imagine they will spell it out and ruin it, but they don't have to.

The thing is, if they don't address it that weighs heavily on "definitely human" because any replicant possibility will need some considerable explanation.

I can imagine the theories of how Decker can still be a replicant being convoluted at best, but we'll see.

Partridge Iciclebubbles wrote:I'd imagine they will spell it out and ruin it, but they don't have to.

One of the worst things about storytelling in modern media is the way we aren't allowed to just imagine any more - everything is spelled out.

Granted, there is something cathartic about finding out the truth, which is probably why they do it, but some stories are better off without it.

Do Not Want.

OrangeRakoon wrote:The thing is, if they don't address it that weighs heavily on "definitely human" because any replicant possibility will need some considerable explanation.

I can imagine the theories of how Decker can still be a replicant being convoluted at best, but we'll see.

Not really, a couple of throwaway lines from supporting characters could easily throw doubt on whether old Deckard is the same person as young Deckard. Chuck in a line from Gosling of “Deckard? You vanished 30 years ago!” and suddenly you don’t know if he has been in hiding, died as a replicant and was replaced by a replicant, died as a human and was replaced by a replicant, if there was both a human and a replicant version of him back in the old movie or something else (depending on what the actual plot of this movie is).

Everything can easily be kept ambiguous. It won’t be, they will want to spell everything out, but it easily could be.

I think it could be quite ambiguous. The director so far from what I've seen of his films doesn't try to spell everything out ,he's the perfect choice for this film. Fingers crossed it's brilliant story wise but also has the same amazing style and synth sound track.The original soundtrack is just outstanding.

Yeah I agree, have a little faith guys. Everyone onboard will be aware of the almost mythical status of the Deckard replicant thing. I'm sure it'll be handled sensitively.

The director has already mentioned he's very aware of not tarnishing the legacy regarding the Deckard replicant storyline and the first Blade Runner movie.

I always preferred to think of him as a human but Ridley kept moving away from that notion with each new cut. Either way, I liked that we weren't blatantly told, just hinted at. Hopefully this aspect is handled with the most care in the new film. The story in 2049 is the only thing I'm worried about as the look of the film seems perfect so far.

It has a lot to live up to but if it does turn out average or lacklustre then I can just ignore it and pretend it didn't happen. I really just want it to be interesting at the very least but at this stage (with Denis Villeneuve at the helm), I'm very excited