The Great Debate

Who was the better protagonist, K or Deckard?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=jrNijjU-2IE
twitter.com/AnonBabble

K is miles ahead of Deckard
>early revelation of being a replicant makes interesting story dynamic that permeates every part of the film
>can take an enormous beating and still come out on top
>is actually competent and can physically overpower his opponents as well as shoot his gun accurately
>is actually submitted to true hardship in the form of explicit racism (speciesism?)
>selfless and kind
>romance is actually believable
>gets hit on by every woman he encounters
>great taste in literature and waifus
>can actually act
>actually does some detective work instead of just falling headfirst into a series of fights where he nearly gets murdered each time

K without question. His character arc is genuinely emotionally investing and the romance he had is also ten times better executed than the flat romance from the original.
Deckard in the original is just a one dimensional one note character with not much depth explored who no one cares about so everyone is only talking about Roy Batty.

The original has a better antagonist, the new one has a better protagonist

K and its not even close. Deckard’s role in the 1st movie is to move the plot forward. The real subjects are the villians. K has a more profound role in the sequel.

Come to think of it, Deckard in the sequel has a more significant role than in the 1st movie

Did the girl give her memories to K so he would eventually find deckard?

K is up there as one of the best protagonists in movies, period. Not only was he an interesting character, he was as close to /ourguy/ as a blockbuster protag is ever going to get

K, easily

She didn't know she was a replicant or that Deckard was her father. She had simply been making memories based on her own that many replicants remember; K was just in the unique position to actually investigate the orphanage and find the horse.

how is this even a debate? ford was the worst thing about this movie.

Why didn't they take K when the took Deckard?

K, easily. Deckard was the weakest part of the original blade runner

>Great debate
>There is no debate

K = reddit
Rick = Sup Forums

>tfw no Roy vs K

Literally wrong

Deckard by a landslide.
He had a personality.

K has no personality(unless you consider Ryan Gosling playing his regular self is a form of personality).

well said

>how is this even a debate? ford was the worst thing about this movie.

PROTIP: Ford was not supposed to be very likable. Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, and not as developed as Batty.

You can spot the exact moment a nostalgia fag enters the thread

K

actually pretty apt.

K seems like the intelligent viewer's choice, but everything is actually spoonfed to the viewer. The viewer thinks he's smart because he 'got' a movie that he was told is smart.

Deckard is far more unscrutable and gives nothing away easily. People have debated him for 30 years. The book is already written on K.

No Ford just hated the director so took the piss and didn't put in any effort.

>Deckard was supposed to be a replicant, an
Literally not true. Everyone involved in the film says otherwise, from the screenwriters to the novel author. Even Ridley himself got the idea after the initial release.

>actually does some detective work
He conveniently stumbles upon clues that can hardly be associated.

And Deckard nearly dying every time made him a more believable character. K fights girls, Deckard survived Roy fucking Batty.

>The book is already written on K.
no it's not, someone got the pages
did you even watch the fucking movie

Deckard isn't even a fucking character. He's just there to push the plot. Seriously though, describe Deckard as a character. You literally can't.

Daily reminder that the Unicorn scene came from another Riddley Scott project when he thought he could save the movie by editing the literal shit out of it

That Gillian Seed ripoff.

>le Sup Forums/reddit dichotomy
Go back

Just as you can spot the pleb who didn't see the original.

>Deckards a more believable character because he's practically useless and always gets his was kicked
Er, no. K is also a replicant, Deckard isn't

>Deckard survived Roy fucking Batty.

Deckard replicant confirmed. Batty would kill a normal human simply by not realizing just how much he had to pull his punches.

I literally watched the original the night before I watched 2049. The original doesn't even compare

>great taste in waifus
absolutely

She was aware she had a childhood, and because she was locked away she became a 3D modeler. Basically, /ourgirl/.

However, could it be she passed that memory of hers to a random replicant as a cry for help?

>Literally not true. Everyone involved in the film says otherwise, from the screenwriters to the novel author. Even Ridley himself got the idea after the initial release.

I love how you contradict your own bullshit claim by admitting, stealthily, that yes in fact the Director of the fucking movie did intend for Deckard to be a replicant.

Talking about Philip K. Dick's novel as if that's somehow definitive is *retarded*. Have you actually read Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? It's nothing like Blade Runner, thematically.

THE INTENT OF THE GUY WHO MADE BLADE RUNNER WAS FOR DECKARD TO BE A REPLICANT. Literally a ton of the movie either doesn't make sense or becomes stupid and plebian without this twist.

Which makes him even better. How is it not great to get your ass kicked and star in the sequel 30 years later?

>THE INTENT OF THE GUY WHO MADE BLADE RUNNER WAS FOR DECKARD TO BE A REPLICANT.
Only after the initial release.

>Literally a ton of the movie either doesn't make sense or becomes stupid and plebian without this twist.
Only if you watch the directors cut

Roy didn't want to kill him, he was toying with him and even saved him to show he had more humanity than a human.

Our Guy, K

>Seriously though, describe Deckard as a character.

Deckard is a Blade Runner, possibly a replicant who has become tired of his job because of the paradoxically dehumanizing aspect of killing replicants. Over the course of a job, his atrophied sense of empathy is challenged by falling in love with a replicant. He realizes that he finds he has more empathy for the replicants over humans, who are universally loathsome to him.
Ultimately, he comes to realize that it is empathy that separates humans from non and that a replicant with empathy can be more human than a human who feels nothing for his fellow living thing.

In a nutshell.

So is Deckard a replicant in this movie or not?

fpbp
K's arc is levels better than deckard falling for a qt robot.
shit was pure kino

Not being humane is the most human trait possible.

Even if he wanted to kill him, Deckard would have survived him.

>the guy who wrote the fucking script says he wasn't a replicant
For fucks sale, Scott is a retard who knows how to point a camera. He doesn't understand how to write a compelling story to save his life.

The movie intentionally make his state remain ambiguous

>Only after the initial release.

NO. Always. He shot the unicorn scene originally. The studio didn't give him full creative control initially, though. Let me say it again for you:

THE INTENT OF THE DIRECTOR WAS ALWAYS FOR DECKARD TO BE A REPLICANT.

>Only if you watch the directors cut

Uhm, no. The ending with Batty becomes really one dimensional and kind of trite if Deckard is a human.

Jared Leto looks into the camera and says it doesn't matter.

>For fucks sale, Scott is a retard who knows how to point a camera. He doesn't understand how to write a compelling story to save his life.

Yeah, Gladiator was such a shit movie, amirite?

they keep it ambiguous which is the best move to play.
one line coems up from Leto's character Wallace when he is talking to deckard where he says "you were programmed to fall for racheal, that is if you were programmed" or some shit like that i forgot line by line but basically saying "you are a replicant, but perhaps not"

youtube.com/watch?v=jrNijjU-2IE

Original is leaps and bounds ahead of the reddit version though, despite being shot 35 years ago with inferior technology and budget.

But what is Batty was a human all along?

Roy is the best.

tfw we'll never have a Roy mover about the shoulder of orion and tannhauser gate

>But what is Batty was a human all along?

Gladiator is a great movie.
Written by three dudes who weren't Ridley Scott.

Which version of the original?

The theatrical cut is a shit hackjob meant to make the movie easy for the average filmgoer.

The director's cut was some film student's idea of what the movie should be.

Both of those are inferior to 2049.

The final cut, that is, the movie Scott wanted to make all along without studio interference, is superior to 2049.

It's close, though, but the original takes it by a nose.

>"It doesn’t look like the original so it's bad"
The most embarassingly plebeian opinion
The sterile empty visuals are the entire point, to show the bleak empty sterile future after the blackout where nature is practically non existent that is in contrast with the dense, dirty, alive and cluttered setting of the original. The original was mostly filmed at night, this was mostly filmed in a day.
It would make no sense for this film to look extremely colorful and dense, it would make no sense to fill the streets with thousands of extras, it would make no sense to make it seem "alive" when everything in it is basically dead.
It's sad that you are comparing visuals of films just by looking at which looks move "nice" or "epic" to you.
And I'm pretty sure you didn't even watched the new film and are making all these claims solely by watching a 2 minute trailer of an almost 3 hour long film. Pathetic.

You don't know a lot about directing, do you?

No amount of cuts will make 2049 remotely close to the Original.
So why does it matter ?

>"It doesn’t look like the original so it's bad"
No one said it but you, so yeah you can be ashamed of yourself. Make a thread about it in reddit while you are at it.

In the meanwhile, pic related.

Again, making claims solely by watching trailer shots and thinking visuals are compared by which look more "cool" without the knowledge of the narrative which the visuals are representing.
Fuck of you pathetic Sup Forumsfaggot casual

>No amount of cuts will make 2049 remotely close to the Original.

Oh, I disagree. There's a 9.5/10 movie in 2049. Tighten it up by about 45 minutes, ditch the unnecessary exposition, and there's a brilliant movie in there.

>Oh, I disagree. There's a 9.5/10 movie in 2049. Tighten it up by about 45 minutes, ditch the unnecessary exposition, and there's a brilliant movie in there.

Oh come on. The only actually interesting part of 2049, aside from some of the visuals, was Joi. And they went nowhere with that.

In some departments the new one is most definitely better, for example the romantic subplot of K and his virtual waifu is ten times more genuinely emotionally investing and moving than the absolutely flat romance with non existent chemistry we got from Deckard and Rachel in the original.
This is pretty much a non disputable fact.

Gladiator was garbage stop pretending. Scotts movies are 99% garbage pseudo intellectual sci fi thrillers that are shit. blade runner got lucky and then he fucked it up with replicant deckard because
>pseudo intellect
where he thought that would be a great twist that totally doesnt undermine the movie and its meaning

Novel Deckard. I haven't seen the flicks.

>And they went nowhere with that.
I think you're confusing Joi with an actual character. Joi simply existed to give us a reference point for K's development as a personality.

but they did with Gigantiss Joy who was just a soulless slut

>>

>Gladiator was garbage stop pretending.
Fucking provincial. Lol. Almost 20 years later there has yet to be a more clever or subversive movie on the topic politics and gender. Also stunningly beautiful, captivating from start to finish with a svelte plot reminiscent of the best of James Cameron, and one of the best soundtracks ever.

But I like Gladiator. Also
>99% of his movies...sci-fi
His shitty historical "epics" would like a word with you.
Everything great about his movies come from other people, though, like everyone else's contributions to Alien.

as dumb as this comment is it made me think of an interesting sequel idea.
>year is said to be 2049
>actually it's several hundred years in the future
>human race has gone near extinct at some point in the past
>remaining humans decide to preserve the human race
>create millions of replicants who can reproduce
>recreate cities and areas to resemble earlier time period
>repopulate said areas and give everyone fake memories
>everyone is a replicant except for a few remaining actual humans who keep the secret
>arbitrarily designate some as 'human' and some as 'replicant' in order to keep society going

>No amount of cuts will make 2049 remotely close to the Original.
>So why does it matter ?
wrong
cut the scene where joi tells the audience that the bottom of the toy horse has the same date as the tree
cut the audio call backs when Bautista is saying "you never witnessed a miracle"
cut anything that held the audiences hands in telling the story
and there you go a 10/10 film

>I think you're confusing Joi with an actual character. Joi simply existed to give us a reference point for K's development as a personality.

The fact that they wasted the only captivating, blossoming part of the story is exactly my point. Even if the original goal was something (dumb) like that, surely they should have recognized the real, interesting, unique, cutting-edge, and deep-seated emotional value of Joi long before this was in the can.

>but they did with Gigantiss Joy who was just a soulless slut

I took this entirely differently. I don't see Gigantic Joi as a "soulless slut" at all. I think the pain K felt in that scene was actually a sign of his own emotional immaturity, his need to feel special instead of simply loved.

Ahahahahah

I'm convinced you haven't actually seen the movie

Roy Batty was fucking dying by the time they fought, Deckard would not live through prime Batty

Wasn't that just some extra footage of a horse from Legend that he spliced into the movie because he thought it looked cool?

>I'm convinced you haven't actually seen the movie

What, you really enjoyed that shit Gaff Hotep scene, with him fondly reminiscing about his "best buddy" Deckard? The "guy" who, in the original movie, he used as a slave and mockingly denied the manhood of even at the end of the film?

You thought The Matron was really cool and really drove the plot forward? I can't figure out why she was there at all except to serve Villenueve's need to include an incest theme.

You thought Jared Leto was super awesome? That was the worst, most inexplicable, irrelevant, silly "villain" since Matrix's "The Architect", if you ask me, but hey, I didn't see the movie so what do I know.

Joi was absolutely not one of the "most interesting" parts of the movie. The only people that say that are hologram waifu losers. Joi was as much a character as Gaff's origami from the first one. Shes there simply to move K's character along and to show his change towards the end of the film. She has no character arc because shes always been programmed to tell their Joe "Everything you want to hear"
That being said. Roy is still by far the best character out of either film, K being a close second

The intent of the director was to have Alien speak like Ripley. Fuck that old faggot and fuck you.

>Wasn't that just some extra footage of a horse from Legend that he spliced into the movie because he thought it looked cool?

Nope, not sure where you heard that but it's totally wrong. Some footage from a different movie did have to be cut in for one of the director's cuts, because the original unicorn footage shot for Blade Runner wasn't in high enough quality. The Final Cut, considered the definitive version, actually does restore some of the original unicorn footage shot specifically and originally for Blade Runner.

Scott's actually come out on record on this one. Deckard was a replicant. It's all over the movie, the eyes, etc. Gaff's line at the end, "you've done a man's job, sir" makes no sense otherwise. Tons of issues like that. I don't know how anyone thinks Deckard was supposed to be a human, and that the sequel played it this way is one of the biggest hints that Villenueve wasn't the right guy to do this.

That scene was uncomfortably arousing.

>gaff fondly reminiscing
>the matron
>jared leto was inexplicable
holy shit you really didn't see it did you

>Joi was absolutely not one of the "most interesting" parts of the movie. The only people that say that are hologram waifu losers. Joi was as much a character as Gaff's origami from the first one.

Joi was not really developed in the movie. But quite unlike everyone else in BR2049, she *had potential to be developed*. There were so many angles they could have gone on with her, playing off the way humans treated replicants and replicants treat holos, introspecting into the nature of love and reality, all kinds of actual interesting, Dick-ian stuff.

Instead they made her trite and killed her off for no good reason, in a scene that made no sense, so they could spend more of the film's excessive screen time on The Fucking Matron.

>Fuck that old faggot

I have a ball. Perhaps you'd like to bounce it.

This is 100% accurate. I would add that despite being a replicant, K also had more of a sense of humor than Deckard

Roy let him live and even saved him out of sport.

There's another layer of depth there. That's why I liked this line. It also could be in reference to "creation" as in programmed by God.

It doesn't have to be taken in the obvious way, directly related to the plot.

>no gigantiss hologram waifu to take care of you
all i could think about was how at first he was staring dead ass at a big purple probably plump, vulva.

Isn't that the point?

Gaff literally refers to Deckard as his "old friend". Gaff and Deckard were NEVER FUCKING FRIENDS. Gaff used Deckard like a slave. He shouldn't have even been in the movie, and if he was, he definitely shouldn't have been fucking WORRIED about this one Blade Runner robot he was in charge of for a short time 20 years ago.

>the matron

Explain the purpose she served to the film, please. I am totally lost on this one. The whole thing seemed to be about setting up that one awkward scene with her coming on to K. Her death scene was literally one giant plot hole.

>jared leto

Holy fuck man, maybe we did see a different movie or something. That performance was both completely awful and added nothing valuable to the story. Tyrell was explicable and not even evil, just a guy in over his head with an ego that didn't permit him to realize that he was playing God, doing things beyond his station. Hugely relevant.

Leto's character was, what? A blind psychopath with drone eyes? That's the allegory we're going for? Cheap, dull, lacking all insight. Just garbage-tier.

>Roy let him live and even saved him out of sport.

Roy saved him because he accepted that all living things must die; that his lifespan, while short, contained some astounding experiences; and that to be remembered is, in some way, to live forever. He appreciated what little he had been given in terms of time, and sent Deckard on his way, to tell Batty's story.

We'll always have Soldier.
(not even joking this is legit set in the BR universe when the first Nexus soldiers arrive)

>Roy saved him because he accepted that all living things must die; that his lifespan, while short, contained some astounding experiences; and that to be remembered is, in some way, to live forever.

Or, he did it because he realized that, while existence was temporary, it was what we did with that time which was the real measure of our worth, not longevity.

Or he did it to show that he was actually better than "humans" like (he thought) Deckard was. Not knowing that by showing that mercy to neighbors (building to building, no less), he was actually saving himself/his kind.

Or maybe it's some bit of all of this, because like real people, Batty wasn't completely single minded and purpose-driven... he sometimes acted for reasons even he couldn't entirely explain, for reasons of feeling and subconsciousness and... soul.

This isn't a question.
K vs Roy is a question.

>Gaff literally refers to Deckard as his "old friend".
sarcasm. He was not worried about Deckard, he was answering questions being asked of him as an old man at the end of his life. He didn't give a fuck about anything and if you know what the Gaff's origami means, he didn't have a very good opinion of K either.

I think that at this point in the story, whether Deckard was a replicant or not doesn't really add anything to the story. So they intentionally left it continuously ambiguous. Who's to say Deckard and Rachel aren't both Tyrell's Nexus 7s that have normal lifespans as well as reproduce? Or maybe it's just Rachel that's a Nexus 7. Doesn't matter now because Rachel's dead, Deckards still fumbling about, and their daughter is born either way.

>"There were so many angles they could have gone on with her"
Because you WANTED them to dig deeper into the hologram waifu of the film instead of the characters that had actual meaning. Because again, Joi was not a character. She was there to move K's story forward. She was always going to be the exact same "character" no matter what. The only sort of development she had was getting the Emitter so she could move freely.
Still, I don't think you saw the same movie because you clearly don't seem to want to get what the fuck was going on with Gaff and Leto being there.
Did you forget that Gaff was the one who intentionally spared Rachel's life knowing that she and Deckard were going to run away together? And Leto 's character was all about the advancement of humanity as a whole. His ENTIRE motive was to push humans further into the stars by breeding the replicants rather than growing them. If he could forcibly breed them, then he'd have an unlimited supply of free slave labor that would slingshot us even further into the cosmos, and he's got the "stomach" as he said for slavery.

I love this movie, and my only gripe with it is that it takes place in 2035 and replicants had already been introduced into the military by then according to Blade Runner, but it's just a minor detail that can just be rewritten that Russell's squad was all humans still

>and... soul
I cringed.

K, easily. I could actually relate to him

K is just a piece of equipment, they didn't care.

>8
What the REAL question is involving gaff is, what did the Sheep origami represent???
I saw the sheep and assumed immediately that deckard was a farmer like bautista. but he wasnt. I think it would have been better if he made origami bee instead