Roy saving Deckard, and the speech before he dies, is his plea to make someone finally understand the horrible fate of replicants. He obviously has no idea what will happen after, but if he can get a replicant killer to see his humanity, maybe his death will not be in vain and maybe Deckard will tell his story. It is analogous to any other story where the supposedly "advanced" people learn to sympathize with the supposedly "lesser" people. Deckard sits there in shock, questioning his entire life and what he has done. If he is actually a replicant, all of that self-discovery is for nothing.
I don't think so. If Deckard doesn't know that he's a replicant then all it does is add another layer to his understanding, because now he's forced to deal with the same problems as the ones he persecuted. I think this continues his path in 2049, which I think also ultimately decides it doesn't matter if Deckard is a replicant or not. As we see in 2049, even other replicants come to persecute replicants. This feels particularly relevant right now.
If he is a replicant, his superiors would most likely know that. If a replicant decides to try and spread the word about the humanity of replicants, it is pretty easy to dismiss because of course a replicant would say that.
watched bergman island for criterion challenge and didn't really care for it i don't think. the "twist" for lack of a better word or shift in the storytelling was really gripping but they keep cutting back to the primary characters who i didn't care for at all and each time it would go back to them it would take me out of the enjoyment i was building during the narrative-within-a-narrative portion. kind of baffling movie.
What does a sequel made over thirty years later by a different director have to do with the original film? Going further, the main smoking gun that he is a replicant is a scene put in a later cut years later that was originally from a different movie. There is nothing in the text of the original film itself.
But clearly Scott thought it was important and my point is that I think it's actually additive to the intent of the film, just as 2049 was additive to that. Art building on art. I don't think it changes anything.
Scott thought it was important years later. It isn't his anymore. It's the same as when Rowling used to come up with new lore every other month for Harry Potter or the retcons of George Lucas.
Not sure if you're going for "it belongs to the audience", but while that's true on some level, the work itself absolutely belongs to the creator to do what they will. It doesn't matter if Scott did this through editing the original or by making a sequel, it's his creation. And in any case, to hear Harrison Ford tell it, it sounds like Scott thought he was a replicant from the start, so him going back later to make it more overt doesn't really change what he was originally going for. Harrison Ford Finally Has a Definitive Answer for Blade Runner's Biggest Mystery | Den of Geek
It doesn't really matter who created it if it doesn't really make sense. If Martin Scorsese releases a new cut of Goodfellas and it turns out Tommy was a police informant the whole time we would all mock it. There is a fundamental difference between adding a scene that develops some things a little more versus something that takes a different turn. The film is about both Roy and Deckard learning what it means to be human, but Deckard's journey is learning that the machine is often more human than humans and that his own life has value (he lives a squalid existence when the film starts).
On another note, we all know Jurassic Park is great but there is a quick moment that bugs me. When the power comes back online and Hammond is talking to Grant on the phone, he panics at the idea of Grant or someone else killing the dinosaurs. This is after all of the death and destruction that has happened in the first 80 percent of the film. Of course, there are many examples of greedy tycoons who would rather humans die than his creation destroyed, but he already sent Muldoon to rescue his grandkids at all costs and he was fine with Muldoon going out to help Ellie with an elephant gun. That scream feels much more like something that book Hammond would do. He is much more of a selfish villain in the book than the film. Movie Hammond admits his park was a mistake but book Hammond dies still trying to plan another attempt.
If I’m thinking of the same scene isn’t Hammond panicking more at the idea that the raptors are, once again, coming after the kids, Grant, and Ellie?
I have always been a Lost World defender and it is still the second best film in the series but I was watching some clips of it last night and it really does have some rough scenes. Roland's team of about two dozen people who are loud and obnoxious show up to save Malcolm's team dangling off the cliff and the tyrannosaurs are nowhere to be found even though they were just there. Harding rolling down a hill and suddenly the velociraptors are no threat even though they were last scene lunging from building to building like superheroes.