fronzelneekburm: Postscript: Blade Runner 2049 There's a lot here I don't agree with (and some that I do) but I don't feel like arguing about it, because even where we disagree, I don't exactly think you're *wrong*. Just that we look at it very differently. While the mood is certainly of pivotal importance, I definately don't agree that there's nothing beneath the surface. I think there's plenty, but if all you took away from it is the mood and the beauty of the experience and enjoyed yourself... I certainly don't think you're to be berated for that.
One thing I can defiantely agree with are the similarities to Drive, both in Gosling's character and the reliance of building a somewhat similiar mood. Hell, there are even some similarities in the story. The role in Drive definately got Gosling the role in BR. That said, BR is definately a vastly superior movie. I found the 95 minutes of Drive to be somewhat tedious, while the 160 minutes of BR just flew by.
Ok, there's one thing where you are definately wrong.
fronzelneekburm: Deckard being a hew-mon makes the theatrical cut of the original film canon and is thus putting an end to Sir Ridley's oh-so-clever post-production-induced brain fart of Deckard being a replicant.
The movie does nothing to clear up Deckard's case. It is in fact done deliberately. There is a scene where Wallace, when speaking to Deckard, very clearly mentions the possibility that he is a replicant, though he does not state that is definately the case.
That said, I never accepted Deckard as a replicant. I don't mind some ambiguity on the subject, but to me the very idea seems so wrong, it never even crosses my mind when I watch the original.
Oh, and I have no idea why you say that no one here has seen or cares about the original? I know for a fact I'm not the only fan of it here.
Vainamoinen: I think I'll leave this one to Breja, he's the even bigger Blade Runner dork.
That's probably the nicest thing anyone here said about me. No joke.
fronzelneekburm: Deckard is a hew-mon in the second one:
They're trying to placate fans of the original by saying both interpretations are still valid and Deckard might be either. I get that they don't want to alienate half of their fanbase by stating that one or the other is right. So let's try simple mathematics, yes? Replicants have a 4 year life span. This is repeatedly stated throughout the film.
It's also stated that it's not the case for all of them. And I think the scene I mentioned with Wallace clearly implies that if Deckard was programmed with a special purpose, he also would not have been constrained by the 4 year expiration date.