Comments on: Ridley Scott Explains Why Deckard Is A Replicant, Says ‘Alien’ Franchise Is Still Financially Viable

By: Randy West

Randy West — Sun, 22 Oct 2017 13:43:00 +0000

not buying it anymore, aliens been sold out to SJWs. ruined it…….. sad

By: DonDrapersAcidTrip

DonDrapersAcidTrip — Wed, 18 Oct 2017 19:27:00 +0000

the original is a better story if he’s a human being. and nothing in the sequel requires him to be a replicant. and anyway a definitive answer in the movie would only hurt the mystique of the thing. I don’t know what his obsession with this is and why he keeps harping on this lol. just shut up and quit trying to ruin your movie

By: filmklassik

filmklassik — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 21:37:00 +0000

In reply to Knight Rider. The possibility wasn’t even hinted at in the 1982 original. It wasn’t until years later that Scott decided it’d be cool to raise the question that maybe Deckard is a replicant, so he went and inserted a few “hints” into the director’s cut. My opinion: If the original text doesn’t support the idea — that is, if it was basically just an ex post facto whim on the part of the director — than it’s not worth taking seriously.

By: Stergios

Stergios — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 19:34:00 +0000

In reply to Knight Rider. Agreed. The ambiguity between Deckard's true identity is one of the most fascinating elements of the original film and I absolutely loved that Villeneuve didn't spoil it for the remarkable sequel he filmed.

By: Knight Rider

Knight Rider — Tue, 17 Oct 2017 14:15:00 +0000

I wish he’d shut up about this. It’s supposed to be a mystery. That’s one of the great things about the original film, and I was so relieved that they didn’t reveal it in the sequel.