3 ms·
I'd disagree with your use on retcon here. It's more the other way around: the voiceovers are a pre-publication retcon. To take an example nothing to do with r
by moomin 9y ago
I'd disagree with your use on retcon here. It's more the other way around: the voiceovers are a pre-publication retcon.
To take an example nothing to do with replicants: it's only the voice over that says Deckard could understand what Gaff is saying. This completely spoils the revelation at the end that Gaff speaks English perfectly well.
Declare is on the back foot for the entire movie. The theatrical cut desperately tries to blunt that, making for a confused experience.
- fullshark 9y agoI mean that's what Scott claims I guess that it was always his intention but it really seems like a pointless twist thrown in for the directors cut. The whole point of the film is Deckard (a human) learns the humanity inside the machines, not Deckard learns he's one of them which is a far less moving story. It's supposed to be ambiguous at points like in the book to emphasize the question of what makes a human but ultimately he should be human. Given the 2nd film's explanation for how he's a replicant is seriously contrived I have to say it seems like a retcon to me. In any case given there are multiple cuts of the film, I'll choose the Final cut minus the Unicorn dream as my ultimate version of the film.
- moomin 9y agoI haven't seen 2049, but I knew they'd have to come up with some stupid story to explain the fact he's still alive. That's what happens when the realities of film-making collide with the story you want to tell.