Rick Deckard is not a replicant, I don't give a single frick what Ripley Scott says
Rick Deckard is not a replicant, I don't give a single frick what Ripley Scott says
Rick Deckard is not a replicant, I don't give a single frick what Ripley Scott says
Ridley Scott is a hack.
true actually, successful despite his personal views.
FPBP
All of his best movies are great in spite of him, not because of him
Deckard’s struggle to determine whether he himself is a human or a replicant is a central motif in the source material, the novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep.
If you don’t like it, your quarrel is with PKD, not Scott, who was simply honoring the author’s vision.
holy shit talk more like a homosexual
wtf???
Cinemaphile is 18+ kiddo
Come back in four years or so
He was human in the book too.
You mean he turned out to be human. He still had to struggle with the question of his own identity. Either you are being obtuse, or your knowledge about the book and the long drawn out process of adapting it is superficial. It languished in development hell for a while, the script went through a number of re-writes, and at some point the spirit of the novel was lost. The unicorn dream sequence and Gaff’s line was Scott’s makeshift way of getting back to the source material.
Stop posting anytime. You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Don’t bother to reply. I’m exiting the thread.
>You mean he turned out to be human
Then op is correct and ur gay
The struggle is fine, definitely stating it is not. Literally the whole "point" of the story to begin with is to question your own humanity, you moron.
Literally didn't happen. The point of the book is that humans are no longer alive because they destroyed the Earth and the only thing Deckard gives a frick is buying a fricking animal as a status symbol. Meanwhile the robots are actually alive, they live by grasping each day as tight as they can.
Ridley's fan fiction goes against every theme of the book, pitting human against non-humans, where the replicans come as more alive and then saying "hey but Deckard is also a replicant and for some reason he's weaker than the sexbot". Absolute fricking brainlet who defends deviant art tier fan fiction.
>is a central motif in the source material,
The book was trash.
But he knows he's human pretty early on.
Yea, it came up but it wasn't the 'central' motif.
The movie doesn't make sense if he isn't. Why is there a guy mysteriously following him around the entire time that says "you've done a man's job" at the end? You don't think the question or the concept of deckard being a replicant makes sense in the context of the movie?
It doesn't make sense because then Rachel is not special and Deckard is more advanced than she is. Also the point of the movie is to make us (humans) questions when it means to be "human". If this question is only asked to replicants then it loses it's meaning.
Rachel was the prototype.
no you stupid homosexual she was literally an all-new next iteration
do any of you even watch these films or are you just on you phones the whole time
Nah, prototype. She was over ten years old and stable. No reason for “the next generation” to just sit around in a penthouse for a decade without going into production.
>literally just making up shit
shut up homosexual
You should watch the movies you try to talk about
go ahead post the timestamp where you're made up frickshit takes place
be sure to included which edit it's from too
Ill wait
You should watch the entire movie. It’s pretty good. Maybe not as fun as looking stupid on Cinemaphile though.
let me know when you find that timestamp bud!
you lying sack of homosexual shit
>No! I don’t wanna watch the movie!!
ok
>Why is there a guy mysteriously following him around the entire time
Because he's a cowardly piece of shit brown-nosing for a promotion. No different than politicians trying to steal the limelight from soldiers or cops when they capture a serial killer or kill an OBL type of bad guy.
Who the frick made this? Joi is made well after the first blade runner and has nothing to do with the replicants.
br49 actually has nothing to do with the original at all
Replicants are artificial humans. Joi is a digitized artificial human mind.
All the replicants have human intelligence in the film. Joi is not real she is just simulated.
you just said exactly what he just said but like a moronic homosexual who's also ugly
>I can’t understand the concept that “simulated” human intelligence is indistinguishable from human intelligence
Sure is summer.
>Sure is summer.
nah Cinemaphile has just always sucked ass
>Cinemaphile has just always sucked ass
Right, but it gets worse in summer when school is out and the new batch of junior high kids find the site and start posting their stupid shit....
Prove it.
this
Im going to need a sauce on this too
Man, this just reminds me how FRICKING STUPID the movies were plotwise. Great visuals, music, etc but the lore? Dogshit.
>autoimmune deficiencies
was this not just a cover up to keep her safe?
>movie named blade runner
>they use guns
Yes he is. Ridley Scott said so
>Ridley Scott said so
you mean the guy that literally just showed up and sat in a chair while the real creatives made a masterpiece despite him?
I'm sorry man. Deckard is a replicant
Ridley Scott also made Alien Covenant
>young talent director
>lets the audience decide whether Deckard is a replicant or not for themselves
>become an old irrelevant hack
>straight up tell everyone Deckard is a replicant btw please go see The Last Duel in cinemas now!!
up tell everyone Deckard is a replicant btw please go see The Last Duel in cinemas now!!
WHAT DO YOU MEAN THEY DIDN'T SEE IT
OH GREAT I BET THEY WERE ON THEIR PHONES INSTEAD
meanwhile tom cruise buttfricks 3-4 box office records like 6 months later
gotta respect guys like Lynch that will flat out refuse to spoonfeed the audience
>Deckard is a replicant
Destroys the entire concept of machines displaying more humanity than the humans that created them. Deckard being a skinjob adds nothing to the story.
>Deckard being a skinjob adds nothing to the story.
it makes ridley feel like he contributed something other than stand around and watch the movie be made around him
I always thought that Deckard being a replicant basically makes Roy's character entirely redundant. Originally, it was an inhuman slave hunter and a vengeful slave both learning to have mutual respect and compassion for each other so becoming equally Human. But if they're both replicants, then they're both slaves who learn that they shouldn't kill each other (which is obvious).
That's a lot less interesting and basically makes Blade Runner's already thematically minimal story even thinner.
That's a great way to see it. Deckward running away with a replicant also isn't powerful he is ALSO one.
Exactly. It basically means the whole point of the movie is "slavery is bad and the slaves learn it's bad" which is an obvious point. If I wanted to learn that slavery is bad then I'd just read any average high school history textbook. I really like 2049 too but I also thought it makes the same mostly uninteresting statement.
Racheal and Deckard running away together is just two slaves running away together which we prima facie already know is a good thing. What's more interesting or challenging is a cruel 'slaver' running away with a slave, for instance.
Deckard being a human and Roy being a non-human slave who both choose not to kill each other is what makes them 'human', irrespective of their biology or how they were made. It's mutual understanding and respect for their dignity which is all that matters.
This thread is garbage take after garbage take compounded by a slurry of stinking shit sewage water takes.
Based.
Hot take here, K isn't a replicant
He's clearly human, the whole twist with him being a replicant was just a wienertease by Scott to sell copies of his directors cut.