Posted: Tue Jun 12, 2007 5:43 pm
When the first one came out, I thought it might be interesting...but as I read the book jacket(which covered many of the changes of the story) I lost all interest and left it on the shelf where I found it.
"Blade Runner 2" didn't seem to want to follow the rules set by the film and was not sophisticated enough to interweave DADoES with the film...Why then bother??
Rachael is dying but Sebastian and Deckard are alive?? etc etc etc.
The one survivor of the whole story should have been Rachael...unless Deckard killed her as in the script. Then again, Deckard doesn't survive either. Why kill the only decent character in the story??
This is where I have to disagree with Mead, the story has no point if Deckard is a Replicant with a short, meaningless life, because he can learn nothing from it, nor implement it.
But I digress.
To follow the film...everyone should be taken at their word...especially the director.
Assuming Deckard was a replicant and Rachael was special...Either Both Rachael and Deckard survive or only Rachel survives.
Killing Rachael guts the story.
If BR were to continue true to form; Deckard would be out in the snow gun pointing to the back of Rachael's head -poised to the pull the trigger, when his hand begins to ache. It claws up into a pale dying thing even as he looks at it. Its nails are turning black as he stares unbelievingly.
He would leave her there, laughing in the snow. When she turns to look at him he is gone. The gun is there, the car is there, but he is not.
That would be a way to end the story. He saw her worth an his own worthlessness and...like he said, he never liked the idea of shooting a woman...especially in the back.
This ending would fix the Mead dilemma BTW.
"Blade Runner 2" didn't seem to want to follow the rules set by the film and was not sophisticated enough to interweave DADoES with the film...Why then bother??
Rachael is dying but Sebastian and Deckard are alive?? etc etc etc.
The one survivor of the whole story should have been Rachael...unless Deckard killed her as in the script. Then again, Deckard doesn't survive either. Why kill the only decent character in the story??
This is where I have to disagree with Mead, the story has no point if Deckard is a Replicant with a short, meaningless life, because he can learn nothing from it, nor implement it.
But I digress.
To follow the film...everyone should be taken at their word...especially the director.
Assuming Deckard was a replicant and Rachael was special...Either Both Rachael and Deckard survive or only Rachel survives.
Killing Rachael guts the story.
If BR were to continue true to form; Deckard would be out in the snow gun pointing to the back of Rachael's head -poised to the pull the trigger, when his hand begins to ache. It claws up into a pale dying thing even as he looks at it. Its nails are turning black as he stares unbelievingly.
He would leave her there, laughing in the snow. When she turns to look at him he is gone. The gun is there, the car is there, but he is not.
That would be a way to end the story. He saw her worth an his own worthlessness and...like he said, he never liked the idea of shooting a woman...especially in the back.
This ending would fix the Mead dilemma BTW.