Why didn't it do better in the theaters? I don't think I'm going out on a limb here, but it could have something to do with being a sequel to movie that wasn't successful 35 years ago.
Why didn't it do better in the theaters? I don't think I'm going out on a limb here, but it could have something to do with being a sequel to movie that wasn't successful 35 years ago.
I also never cared for Ridley Scott's retcon of "Deckard is a replicant". If that is true, then the whole setup for your movie doesn't work (ie Deckard coming out of retirement).
I stopped watching the Oscars many, many years ago. I used to watch religiously until the 1990’s when I realized the whole thing was just a load of bull-crap industry narcissism and just a platform for typical Hollywood virtue-signaling. Oscars mean nothing.If this man doesnt take Oscar home with him, I`ll never watch again.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ba3Enu2l_bE
I stopped watching the Oscars many, many years ago. I used to watch religiously until the 1990’s when I realized the whole thing was just a load of bull-crap industry narcissism loaded with a good dose of Hollywood virtue-signaling. Oscars mean nothing.
I love movies, too. I used to be excited about seeing if my favorite films got recognition. Maybe my tastes changed but inevitably it became impossible to ignore how internally political the process was. I realized I didn’t enjoy watching Hollywood stroking itself on national television.I`m not a fan of watching way over paid people getting handed golden statues much either but I single out the Oscars to watch as movies are a fairly big deal to me. I`m more into the technical awards.
I love movies, too. I used to be excited about seeing if my favorite films got recognition. Maybe my tastes changed but inevitably it became impossible to ignore political the process was.
I think the final “straw” was 1994 where the best picture went to Forrest Gump which (In my personal opinion) was a fine “feel-good”, emotionally contrived movie about a moral Mary Sue - a character dealt the ultimate social “victim card” who basically plays out a wish-fulfillment fantasy. I know my opinion here isn’t popular but 1994 also gave us Pulp Fiction, Shawshank Redemption and Good Will Hunting. Each one of those an instant classic and more deserving IMO.
How is it a retcon? Scott has stated going back to the original days that Deckard is a replicant.
What do we know of Deckard`s past? Everything we do know could all be implants. All we have is a picture of his wife and that is about as significant as Rachels photo of her and her mother, which we knew was not real. Deckard may have been the first Nexus 8 for all we know. The whole bringing back from retirement thing could all have been a set up from the start, maybe he only came into existence a day before we found him waiting for noodles.
It is more than clear that the LAPD openly uses replicants in 2049 but you have to consider the fact that Tyrell was possibly making them for the LAPD back in the day, only secretly and Bryant was fully aware of that and so was Gaff, hence the unicorn at the end.
I think that the eclectic array of furnishings in Deckards apartment is also a tell. There is a bit of every possible style of furniture, art etc to be found there, which tells me that it was put there by someone else to give Deckard a further sense of grounding.
I know it's just one of those things people will decide what they want about, but filming Gaff saying "You've done a man's job, sir. But are you really sure you are a man?" at the time of principal photography makes retcon an odd term to use.
Compared to the Nexus 6 models we see, Deckard displays comparatively human frailty. Leon beats the snot out of him and would have killed him had Rachel not intervened. Pris beats hims up pretty good. Roy wipes the floor with him also. Roy easily made a jump that Deckard can't do.